Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:24, 16 April 2007

Wikipedia:Attribution was created to serve as a combination of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It was believed that consensus for such a merger was reached, but that has been called into question. The long-term resolution of this issue is presently under discussion.

This page documents an English Wikipedia WP:RS.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. See that page for more information about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing.

Why use reliable sources?

Sources are used:

To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.

Assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources.

If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Aspects of reliability

Scholarship

Wikipedia relies in part on material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world. These may be outdated by more recent research, or may controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Shortcut

WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.

Types of source material

See No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Biographies of living persons

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Self-published sources (online and paper)

See Verifiability: Self-published sources (online and paper)

Extremist sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Claims of consensus

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Convenience links

Also see Wikipedia:Convenience links

The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the Internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to Adam Smith's famous work The Wealth of Nations might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:

Smith, Adam (1904) [1776]. ed. Edwin Cannan (ed.). The Wealth of Nations (Fifth edition ed.). London: Methuen and Co. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help), available at Wikisource

Such links are unique in how reliability is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

Examples of statistics, subjects, and online sources

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, Business and Commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

References

External links

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Aspects of reliability==
 ===Scholarship===
-Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.
+Wikipedia relies in part on material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world. These may be outdated by more recent research, or may controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.
-* The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
-* Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
-* Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.
 === Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ===