User:Martinlc/ReliableSourcesFlowchart
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
There are recurrent questions from editors on the lines of "Is Foobar News a Reliable Source?", "Can I use the Foobar official website as a Reliable Source in the article about Foobar?". Having attempted to explain the WP:RS and WP:SPS policies on the noticeboard, using similar words, I thought it would make sense to codify the tests that editors should be applying when evaluating sources.
Principle #1 : Source not content
WP:RS is about defining the types of website, news source, academic journal or book that should be used in creating encyclopedic content. It is not about whether a specific example within that source can be trusted. If Foobar News says the moon is made of green cheese, then a statement derived from its report, with source reference, can be added, even if the Wikipedia editor has been there and knows it isn't. There is a tendency for editors to argue against specific sources they don't believe, however impeccable their credentials, by assembling infromation to show either A the report was wrong or B the source can't be trusted. In both cases this is Original Research.
Principle #2 : Authorship
The most basic protection that readers have against nonsense or malicious fiction is an identified author. Anonymous text will always have a question mark against it: information without a verifiable origin isn't really information at all. Sometimes authorship becomes corporate (the BBC website and news agencies are not credited to individuals), but here the corporate body must endorse its content, not just host it. There is a question about pseudonymous authors, who may have built up a reputation as their online persona sufficient to merit use as a source. But caution is needed: they should not be used as the only source for an unusual claim, and bcause of the echo-chamber effect, rmours can gain apparent currency easily. My choice would be to exclude this material. This cuts out all blogs, forum posts and wikis which do not use real names.
Principle #3 : Stability
The whole idea behind references to sources is to allow readers, should they wish to, to satisfy for themsleves whether the source has been correctly understood and is worthy of credence.
Authority and influence