User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation
This page is an attempt to codify all policies and guidelines into one single document.
Before you start editing Wikipedia, you should read and make sure you understand the policies and guidelines outlined below. By editing Wikipedia, you automatically agree to follow these rules and you understand that you may face sanctions if you break them.
General philosophy and principles
[edit]- Your main goal is: you are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia that others can trust.
- All rules outlined here are meant to lead to this goal, without exception. If any rule prevents you from doing that, ignore it. Facing multiple interpretations of the same rule, choose the one that best leads to this goal.
- If you came here to do something else, please stop. In particular, this is not a place to make up stuff, spread propaganda, advocacy, gossip or otherwise make the encyclopedia unreliable and biased. You will be banned if you do that, particularly if repeatedly or consistently so.
- This is an encyclopedia, so not everything belongs. We are not a newspaper, an information dump, a dictionary, a directory nor a collection of source documents.
- Wikipedia is a collaborative project.
- Treat others as you would like others to treat you, even when you disagree with them or do not like them.
- Don't be a jerk to anyone in any way. We will ban people who misbehave.
- We are not social media.
- If you came here to start, wage, or win wars of any kind, to "own" someone or to advance any sort of agenda other than improving the encyclopedia, you are in a wrong place
- Wikipedia operates on consensus - a general agreement of editors. We are not, however, a political experiment of any kind.
- Wikipedia is free to use, edit, and distribute
- Do not violate copyright and never plagiarise from any source.
- If possible, use free media ("free" as in "freedom"). Usage of copyrighted media is sometimes allowed but is legally restricted.
- There is no such thing as "your article". Anyone can edit, and even delete, what you wrote, as outlined in the rules.
- Wikipedia's rules should be written in a simple, understandable way that yields just outcomes for all participants.
- Rules should be as concise and clear as possible
- Rules must be consistent and should apply equally to all editors
- Use common sense and your best judgment when applying the rules
- We are not here for the rules, the rules are here so that the encyclopedia creation process runs smoothly.
Types of rules
[edit]- Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should follow. They are codified here.
- Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. As such, you should also follow them, but there may be some valid exceptions, so don't interpret them rigidly. Guidelines, except for the Manual of Style, are also codified here. They are explicitly marked as such.
- Process pages implement a certain policy or guideline in connection with a certain process (e.g. Articles for Deletion allows for articles to be deleted according to a subset of rules regulating removal of content).
- Essays are pieces of advice or commentary (a) certain editor(s) offer(s) on a policy or guideline. Explanatory essays or supplemental essays are special cases of essays that offer advice on how to apply a certain policy or guideline when editing Wikipedia. Essays are NOT policies or guidelines, may not override them and are not their official interpretations. That said, some may be influential in the community.
When applying a certain policy or guideline, apply only the interpretation that will best work towards making the encyclopedia and its articles better, and maintaining a collegial atmosphere, even if alternative options better suit your political, religious or other personal veiws. If a policy or a guideline prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.[a]
Another way of defining the rules reflect the areas that the rules cover:
Editing. This includes rules about:
- Content, i.e. what you should and should not write in an article for it to belong to an encyclopedia. They only apply to article space.
- Naming conventions are a set of guidelines about choosing an appropriate article title
- The Manual of Style regulates the technical details of writing, which includes proper language and formatting.
- Deletion, i.e. how unwanted content is removed, wherever it is.
- Notability guidelines regulate what topics are important enough to belong in an encyclopedia. They are often used in article deletion discussions.
- Conduct, i.e. acceptable behaviour between editors.
- Content, i.e. what you should and should not write in an article for it to belong to an encyclopedia. They only apply to article space.
Disputes between editors are divided into those about conduct (the last position) and content (everything else). Wikipedia generally maintains a separation between the two. Therefore, conduct disputes will generally be processed in dedicated venues resolving conduct issues.
Procedure. These rules treat about:
- User rights, which outlines what a user with a given permission may or may not do.
- Processes, i.e. ways to report bad conduct, appeals, seeking consensus or changes to the rules.
- Legal issues, mostly set by the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Enforcement, outlining the duties, rights and restrictions on actors authorized to enforce the all of the above rules.
Content rules
[edit]Content rules aim to guide the development of articles so that they are informative, well-written, balanced, honest and trustworthy, while also following appropriate style guidelines.
Why we have these rules
[edit]The main purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies we list below. These policies are necessary to have trustworthy articles.
- We specifically exclude certain types of content, as mentioned below, so that Wikipedia is and remains an encyclopedia that summarises knowledge about covered topics. There may be other relevant venues where you would like to produce other types of content.
- We require article topics to be notable so that we can actually write a whole article based on them, rather than just half a paragraph or a definition of that topic, and so as to avoid any type of content that would not belong in an encyclopedia.
- In particular, we require multiple sources to cover the topic so that the article is not unduly biased or unbalanced due to the viewpoint(s) of the source's author(s).
- We require sources to be reliable so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
- We require that all articles rely primarily on independent sources so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with our neutrality policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising or promoting anything or anyone.
- We require the existence of secondary and/or tertiary sources so that we are sure that outsiders noted the significance of the described topic, which is an indicator that the topic is notable for a Wikipedia article.
- We require content to be verifiable so that you can trust that Wikipedia does not make up stuff.
- We require articles to comply with the neutrality policy so that you can trust that the article covers the topic fairly and in a balanced way, with appropriate emphasis on all major viewpoints.
- We require articles in certain sensitive and contentious areas (among others, living people, religions, pseudoscience and medicine) to comply with heightened standards to minimise any risk that we fail in any of the above objectives; and to resolve a good deal of often-litigated questions so that editors can bring their focus back to writing an encyclopedia instead of arguing said questions. For living people, the heightened standards are additionally important for legal reasons, so that we do not in any way defame them.
- We require you to abide by copyright rules and not to plagiarise for legal reasons, and also to prevent academic dishonesty.
- We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have articles with proper length. We neither want bloated articles people will get lost in, nor short articles unlikely to be expanded beyond a sentence or two. We also want to reduce redundant information repeated across articles.
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, though articles whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists) are exempt from notability requirements.
What Wikipedia is and is not
[edit]![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
Wikipedia is
[edit]Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia that can fit a lot of things. Wikipedia hosts articles that are a summary of accepted knowledge about the subject, presented in an encyclopedic style. Wikipedia is not constrained by limitations that paper encyclopedias have, and theoretically Wikipedia could cover an extremely large amount of topics in great depth. But just because it can doesn't mean it should. And it won't.
Wikipedia is not
[edit]- A dictionary (Wiktionary is the place). Encyclopedia entries should start with a good definition, but if you cannot expand beyond it, it doesn't deserve an article. However, definitions themselves, and changes therein, may be of encyclopedic interest (e.g. definition of planet, Macedonia (terminology)), as can be a term has earned enough coverage or scholarly/cultural commentary that it can be expanded beyond the bare meaning (e.g. truthiness, 3, π).
- A textbook or a manual. (Wikibooks and Wikiversity are the places). Summarize accepted knowledge, don't tell the reader how to do stuff. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions, nor like manuals or cookbooks, where you guide the reader through necessary steps. However, if your article simply informs the reader by means of example, or describes how people actually use certain things, instead of instructing how to do that, it's fine. This applies to languages - describe them, don't try to tell the readers how to learn them. You can easily change the prescriptive wording to a descriptive one, e.g. You should take the vaccine ->
The EMA advises to take the vaccine
. - A travel guide. (Wikivoyage is the place) Wikipedia can describe landmarks within a given city (e.g. the article on Paris should mention the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower), but don't cram it with travel guide stuff such as the "best" restaurants and hotels with pricelists, or attractions not located in the city. The main attractions are more than enough.
- A game guide. (Wikibooks may be the place). A brief plot summary and the main actions the player performs in the game are good; lists of gameplay concepts and items are generally bad, and walk-throughs and detailed coverage do not belong, either. However, there may be certain game concepts or details that secondary sources discuss in gaming context in detail, or which are essential to understand the game or its significance in the industry. These may have a concise mention, or even their own articles if appropriate (e.g. BFG from the Doom series). See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE.
- A FAQ/advice column. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) and Q&As are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Instead format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
- A scientific journal. (a WikiJournal may be the place). We write for a general audience, so write plainly and avoid overly technical language. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Any literate reader without a background in your area of expertise should be able to understand what you are writing about in the lead and initial sections without having to guess the meaning of the words, and the learning curve should be as shallow as possible. Do a wikilink to advanced or more complicated concepts.
- A case study. Many articles tell the relation of factor X to factor Y (e.g. situation Z in location A, or version B of item C). The key is that there has to be something in this relation that, taken together, distinguishes the topic enough to be notable enough for a separate article (e.g. because it is a culturally significant thing). For example, slate industry can have subarticles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Slate industry in Spain" because these are significant in these jurisdictions and this is covered in reliable sources. "Date palm trees in Oman" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely be a point-of-view fork or have original research (both of them bad things) as there is little that distinguishes them of all "date palms" or "trucks" enough to warrant coverage.
- A place for speculations and unverified predictions. We do not have a crystal ball, and your personal opinion on the future is of no significance to Wikipedia. Moreover, some topics that describe a future event do not belong (yet) to Wikipedia. A summary is presented in the table below (examples as of July 2024).
Acceptable | Unacceptable | Reason |
---|---|---|
Scheduled/expected events which are notable and almost certain to occur or, at the very least the planned event must have well-documented speculation (e.g. 2025 Polish presidential election) | Scheduled/expected events where nothing beyond generic information or original research can be said (e.g. 2042 French presidential election) | Encyclopedias do not cover future events that have no coverage in reliable sources |
Description of speculative events/properties that have had sufficiently wide coverage (ultimate fate of the universe, extended periodic table, World War III) | Description of events or things whose names are predicted on a systematic pattern but nothing beyond generic information can be said (Tropical Storm Andrea (2025)) | If there is ample discussion, it is fine to describe the views even on highly speculative events or even on something not yet discovered. However, even though an Atlantic storm is almost certain to occur next year, we have nothing real to say about it except for its name. |
Articles on notable artistic work, essays, or credible research that give a certain prediction that has sufficiently wide coverage (weapons in Star Trek) | All other predictions involving extrapolation, speculation, "future history" or Galileo gambits (e.g. weapons to be used in World War III, any predicted team line-up) | A portrayal of the future may be culturally or historically significant, but this is an exception rather than a rule. Most are not. We never know if a future event will happen, so we don't want to misinform/disinform readers. |
Articles about products that just launched, or films that started principle photography/are in production stage, as confirmed by sources stating it has already started | Articles about products that were just announced or are rumoured to appear, or films in pre-production stages or those that did not appear | Such products can be withdrawn or fail. Even though an encyclopedia can discuss a notable failure, we try to describe the real thing instead of what the producer/manufacturer wants us to believe it will be, if it ever will be. |
- A newspaper. You should update the article with new verified information once it appears, and may even create one as the event unfolds. However, we don't host first-hand coverage of breaking news and we don't write in news style. (Wikisource and Wikinews may do that). Don't rush writing up on a news story, consider the long-term notability. If the only sources in the article are contemporaneous coverage and no new coverage on the event appeared, it may be a signal the article was emphasising the news too much and may not even be notable after all. Individuals only known due to a single notable event are not necessarily notable - instead describe them in the article about the event. The inverse is true as well: just because an article describes an event involving a celebrity doesn't mean you need to add information to that person's article, particularly if this is trivia or, worse still, gossip.
- An information dump or a database (Wikidata and Wikispecies are, though).[b] Articles about creative works or works of art can and should discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Just including a film plot or lyrics for a song is not good enough (and when you do, beware of copyright and limit your quotations to fair use size). Similarly, including statistics in an article is only fine if you put them into context, create graphs, tables and plots that facilitate understanding of them, and explain what they stand for.[c] Another example of a database that we strongly discourage is posting exhaustive software update logs or list of all app versions and patches - a summary of the app's development is enough.
- A mirror or repository of links and media files. It is OK to mention some links and add a few images to the articles, but do not overwhelm the article with too many links (external or internal), or media without any sort of description of why they are relevant to the article. Complete copies of primary sources in the public domain should go to Wikisource; on Wikipedia, only cite the relevant fragments to show context.
- A directory. Yes, we do organize things within our lists. No, we are not yellow pages nor do we publish TV schedules. Lists should have a well-defined core topic (not too narrow, not too broad) that have encyclopedic merit. Therefore, List of heads of state of South Africa is OK but articles like List of senior Black employees of Waffle House or List of Ukrainian restaurants in Buenos Aires don't work unless you can establish notability of a particular grouping in the list (family, ethnic, racial, or otherwise) and this is somehow culturally or historically significant. Lists of creative works of notable creators are generally allowed (for instance, a bibliography of Veronica Roth, a HarperCollins author, can be included, but a list of all HarperCollins books is too broad.) However, if these creations are just aphorisms or famous quotes, an article is not appropriate (Wikiquote will accept these).
- A resource to conduct business. Articles and talk pages are not meant to conduct or promote business of the article subject on Wikipedia. Whereas a list of top functionaries of a notable company may be appropriate, other lists related to businesses will not generally be. We are not a price comparison service and do not say which products are superior, we may at most report others' opinions on that. We are not customer support on products covered on Wikipedia. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention. It may be a detailed discussion in mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews), but a passing mention alone is not enough.
- A soapbox or a means to promotion. Advocacy, propaganda, advertisement, marketing, publicity or public relations (including self-promotion), whatever their nature, topic or purpose, are not allowed on Wikipedia. You can report objectively on how this is done, but this must be done from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not here to share and promote your opinions on current affairs, nor generally anyone else's for that matter. If you came here to prove your opinions are correct, then you are in a wrong place. If you came here to show how good you are, you should do it elsewhere, too. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your CV, is unacceptable for an article. Neither is it acceptable for an article to be an extension of the company's website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. If your company intends to make a public service announcement or promote a cause or an event, Wikipedia is the wrong venue. If you have any conflict of interest while editing Wikipedia (e.g. you are employed by the title company, paid to edit, or related to the person you edit about), you MUST disclose it, and you'd rather not touch the areas where such conflict exists. Wikipedia endorses no corporate entity nor runs affiliate programs.
- A forum for your thoughts. Original theses, novel ideas, personal essays,[d] opinion pieces, unpublished analyses etc. do not belong on Wikipedia, particularly on its articles. Your task is to summarise knowledge as published by other people, preferably experts, it is not to brag about your views or promote them, or show off you brand-new invention, at least until it becomes notable enough as to be discussed in reliable sources.
- A PvP area. Your task is to create an encyclopedia and not bicker with random people on the Internet. Article pages should stay factual; article talk pages can only be used to discuss improvements to the article and are not areas to argue about the article subject. We will delete discussions that do not comply with the talk page guidelines. If you want to discuss a specific question on a topic that has reasonable academic interest, you may use the Reference Desk.
- Social media. Your website, blog, wiki, CV or your cloud storage does not belong on Wikipedia - do it somewhere else. Do not upload files to Wikipedia that you will not use for its betterment - those that are not used will be deleted. Your user page is only to tell something of relevance while working on Wikipedia. You do not own your user page. Don't use user pages for non-Wikipedia stuff, including amusement and social networking. Do not seek relationships or sexual encounters. Your relative's/friend's death is not grounds enough to create an article about them, and commemorating them in this way is inappropriate use of the website.[e]
- A place for scandalmongering. Spreading gossip or things "heard through the grapevine" is not allowed. Take particular care when writing about a living person, as you must make sure you do not defame them or infringe their right to privacy. Deliberate defamation, or creating pages solely to attack the reputation of any person, legal or natural, via Wikipedia articles, is strictly forbidden and will get you sanctioned.
Finally, Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless of the opinions of certain organisations calling for them to stay secret, Wikipedia will not remove information they object to if it is otherwise encyclopedic. Also, Wikipedia explicitly allows usage of objectionable content or obscenities if there is a good reason to use them. If the omission makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available, that content should and will stay. You should not bowdlerise profanities (replace some letters with symbols). However, offensiveness is not a reason in itself to include content, nor does it mean there is a preference for (more) offensive content. Just choose the most relevant option to illustrate the article topic. Exceptions include things that violate Wikipedia policy or United States law (where the servers are located). We do not deploy additional disclaimers to alert readers to objectionable material; please read WP:Content disclaimer.
Topics must be notable
[edit]![]() | This page in a nutshell: The concept of notability determines whether Wikipedia should have an article about a given topic. It definitely should not if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, or if the article would be one of things Wikipedia is not. Some areas have their own guidelines for notability - you should also consult them as some special cases may apply to the topic. |
Notability is a necessary condition for the article's existence. It is a measure of how much a topic is remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. A topic is notable and thus generally may have an article or list if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) or any of the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs)
- It is not anything listed in Wikipedia is not
It is up to you to demonstrate notability when you are challenged to do so (e.g. when somebody starts a deletion discussion). If you cannot demonstrate it by naming several good published sources about the topic, the article about it will be deleted (see deletion policy). Subject-notability guidelines will make deletion harder but not impossible, as eventually any article only satisfying an SNG will have to prove it also satisfies the GNG.
General notability guideline (GNG)
[edit]A topic generally may have a stand-alone article or list when several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject[f] address the topic directly and in detail,[g] so that editors do not have to resort to original research.
Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs)
[edit]In certain topic areas, SNGs have been written to to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The assumption is that the topic that passes the criteria should pass GNG because it would have been covered for reasons outlined below, and even if it wasn't, is important enough to likely warrant their own article.
SNGs may differ in their criteria from the GNG, and in some cases SNGs modify the GNG to put a more stringent set of criteria. However, the main rule remains: if for whatever reason reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not or are unlikely exist, do not create an unsourced article, as content must be verifiable. Reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject are still the ones that establish notability, and the notes about the requisite number of sources[f] and what is non-trivial coverage[g] apply as well, unless specifically told otherwise. Some SNGs will also specify which articles should not be created.
This code presents a summary of extant SNGs that differ from the general notability guideline above. As guidelines, they are rules of thumb that should not be interpreted rigidly - exceptions may apply. WikiProjects may have their own notability criteria and may offer valuable advice about writing articles in their areas of interest. However, remember these are mere essays and may have little force of persuasion during deletion discussions.
Field | Applies to | Criteria | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Academics | Scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars ("academics") - people involved in higher education, scientific research, or otherwise known for their academic achievements, regardless of whether they work in science-related fields.
The academics guideline does not apply to those who spread pseudoscientific or fringe beliefs. |
General question: "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this academic stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" The answer is yes if:
Though factual statements of accomplishments can be verified by the issuer of the award, the university that gave the distinguished professor status, the academic journal staff page etc., whether the impact was substantial or significant must be verifiable by independent reliable sources, third-party reviews, citation metrics etc. To properly use citation metrics, see WP:Citation metrics. Once you established notability through any of the steps, you may use non-independent sources for routine, non-controversial details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astronomical objects | Any naturally occurring physical bodies, associations, or structures that exist in outer space, including groups that appear solely due to Earth's viewing perspective (e.g. asterisms and optical double stars).
Not covered:
|
No astronomical object is inherently notable, nor do related astronomical objects inherit notability of the main object.
In addition to any article that satisfies GNG (a single paper is not enough), an article generally may be created if any of the following is true:
Candidate astronomical objects, or those proposed by a serious scientific hypothesis, by themselves do not satisfy this SNG and must pass under GNG. You must note their hypothetical status. A special consideration for minor-planet objects: per consensus, do not nominate more than 10 asteroids per day for deletion. If numbered below 2000, the articles must be discussed before deletion/redirection; for asteroids above 2000, if the topic is unlikely to be notable, it is appropriate to redirect it to a numbered list of asteroids.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Books | Books, whether in traditional or electronic form. Web content SNG may apply to e-books.
Not covered:
|
The book is notable if, at a minimum, it is catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library (if that country has such a national library), or it appears in projects similar to Project Gutenberg
and the article has enough sources to be able to write the article beyond the book's bibliographical information and plot summary and if any of the following applies:
Self-publication or publication by a vanity or a print-on-demand press do not correlate with notability. The rules mentioned here apply to contemporary books. There may be common-sense derogations for these rules if applied to old books[l] or to academic and technical books.[m] Splitting an article to write about a specific thing or character in the book is not generally advised as these derivatives are not normally independently notable. There are a few exceptions, particularly in very notable books, e.g. Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Events | Any sort of events
Application of the principle that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" |
The larger the impact of the event, and the wider and deeper the coverage about it, the more likely the topic is notable. In particular, an event will likely be notable if:
What is non-notable:
Rules for high-profile crimes, including murder or disappearance (either established or deemed likely to have happened by relevant authorities) are the same. Whether anyone has been indicted or convicted is irrelevant. Just because the crime was later found not to have happened doesn't mean the topic loses notability. There is no deadline. Do not rush to create an article or delete it shortly after it appeared - better wait for more reliable reporting when the hot news cycle cools down and get to work then. You may also rework or merge the article somewhere else. Hindsight is 20/20. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Film | Movie productions and associated articles | Film articles are likely to be notable if:
Additionally, films that were successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producer[o] and which were produced in its equivalent of a major film studio may also be included, even if they fail other criteria, if notability is asserted by any reliable independent source and it goes beyond the mere fact of production. Articles about future films should demonstrate that the film is clearly past the pre-production stages (e.g. for films, principal photography has started - will start is not OK), and before they come to cinemas, only films notable for their production itself should have articles. Failed films should not have articles unless failure itself was notable. Reliable and independent sources should describe the film in detail and directly (see WikiProject's resources). Newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide and Time Out Film Guide are not sufficient. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is not a reliable source and may not be used to prove notability. A movie character should only have its own article if this interpretation of the character independently received extensive coverage from independent reliable sources, or if it made at least three non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geographic features | Any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial (man-made)
Not covered:
|
For any geographic feature, the article must include more than just the name, statistics and coordinates. Inclusion of a feature on a map, or its naming for a famous event, person or organisation does not by itself make it notable. It is advised to include identifiable minor geographic features within articles for larger features, particularly if the sourcing is scarce.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Music | Topics related to music, including people who perform or compose it and their works. | Musicians, bands and ensembles. An article about these people is generally notable if:
Members of notable bands may have their own articles only if they are independently notable, otherwise redirect to the band article. Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists. An article about these people is generally notable if they:
People acting in non-mainstream musical genres. An article about these people is generally notable if they:
Musical works.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Numbers | Individual numbers, kinds of numbers, sequences of numbers and lists of numbers | General criterion: An article is notable if professional mathematicians study this particular topic and/or if amateur mathematicians are interested by it and/or if the number or its sequence have a cultural or natural significance.
These articles are generally notable:
When considering whether other number topics deserve an article, consider these questions:
The more answers to these questions are "yes", the more likely the article is notable. If the article will not be likely notable, some very basic facts about a number will be presented in a so-called "range section". For example, 40000 (number) has a section Selected numbers, in this case for numbers in the range 40001–49999, which contain chosen numbers that have a peculiar mathematic property, but which alone would not justify an article. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organisations and companies | Companies, organisations, associations, partnerships, institutions, sports teams, schools etc. ("organisations" for short) This applies to both commercial and non-profit entities, government or private-sector.
This guideline also covers products and services. The guideline does not cover:
|
If multiple reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject treat the topic directly and in detail, the topic is notable. At least one source with significant outreach and circulation (international, national, at the very least regional/statewide/provincial) is mandated. Each source must satisfy all criteria to count towards notability. Err on the side of caution when in doubt.
Generally, if a listing or mention is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, it does not help towards establishing notability. These include:
Other sources that do not establish notability are:
Reviews are acceptable sources to establish notability if they focus on a particular product or function with proper context, it is certain that the author personally engaged with the topic being reviewed, the opinions are independently produced of others (including other reviewers) and if they were published in a reliable outlet known for independence and objectivity that has significant outreach and circulation. Meta reviews (review aggregations) are fine if the author put enough original effort to create one. Non-independent reviews may not be used for notability but may serve to verify uncontroversial facts. These rules apply to any kind of organisation. NGOs, for-profit educational institutions or companies (even if listed on a stock exchange) are not exempt just for being such. Local organisations, or local subdivisions/units of larger organisations may be notable if they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the small organisation's/subdivision's local area. Buildings or events associated in any way with the organisations may be independently notable under the events and/or geographical features SNGs (e.g. Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), San Ysidro McDonald's massacre), but otherwise they usually aren't. A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources that treat the topic directly and in detail, and these sources are completely independent of the subject sources. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General guideline about people | This guideline covers individuals, whether living or deceased.
It also applies to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors. Exceptions:
|
General. A person will generally be notable if any is true:
If there is a person only known for one event, a general rule is to have an article about the event and not the person, unless the person is better known than the event itself (e.g. Tank Man). Creative professionals.[s] A creative professional will usually be notable if any is true:
Crime. If there is an article about the (suspected) crime event (see Events SNG), details about the person should be in that article unless size concerns suggest splitting. In particular, do not create an article for a person only known in connection with a criminal event or trial. If there is no such article, perpetrators may have their own article if the victim of the crime is a renowned public figure (politician, celebrity, etc. - see John Hinckley Jr.), or if the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is so unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event (e.g. Jack the Ripper). Alleged living perpetrators are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Allegations are not facts. Victims (including of miscarriage of justice) should only have their own articles if the crime/wrongful conviction had lasting historical significance (e.g. the murder of George Floyd caused widespread protests for racial justice). Entertainers.[t] An entertainer will likely be notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, or if the person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Politicians and judges. Politicians and judges who are elected, appointed or have held international, national, or (for countries with federal, autonomous or similar entities) state/province-wide/autonomy-wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, are likely notable. This applies to unrecognised countries as well. Officials holding office at a local level, or unelected candidates to any office, must pass GNG to be notable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sports and athletes | Sportspeople, whether amateur or professional. This does not include people who engage in "athletic theatre", or sports-related events which are at least partially predetermined or scripted.
Sports organisations and leagues, whether amateur or professional. Sportspeople from sports not explicitly listed in this SNG must satisfy GNG. There is no consensus that esports participants are covered by this SNG. |
Sports figures are likely to be notable if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. Clubs and teams, venues where sportspeople play, and articles about rivalries must satisfy GNGs. Some venues may be notable under the Geographic features SNG.
Due to the wide variety of sports played, the guideline is very long. Therefore, information is hidden within collapsible boxes. Unhide the content you would like to read, and you will be able to find guidelines about what and who is notable.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Web content | Any content accessed via the Internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content. This includes blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, e-books, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals | No kind of web content is in itself notable. It is likely to be notable if:
|
Caveats
[edit]- A notable topic is not equal to a "famous", "popular", "interesting" or "important" topic. At least not equal to whatever perceived fame or degree of importance you attach to the topic. We have reliable secondary and independent sources to do that job.
- Notability is not generally inheritable - each topic should be independently notable for it to have an article. In other words, there is no such thing as notability by any sort of association with another notable topic (some SNGs above may create rare exceptions)[w]
- Notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Sometimes the encyclopedia would benefit from treating the topic in another article, or group several topics in one big article. To see if you should, think whether the topic would be better seen in context of another topic, or as part of larger topic, and if you can improve the stand-alone article beyond the current state. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into whatever article closely associated with the topic is better developed and has better demonstrated notability; but if you can make it more than a stub, do so. It may also appear after a thorough discussion and inspection that the Wikipedia article fails notability after all, even if the article passes GNG and/or SNG on the first glance. In this case, also merge the content to other article(s).
- The concept does not apply to article content. Other content policies apply to article content. However, editors may agree to use list selection criteria for lists.
- The concept applies to the topic, not to the current state of the article. What matters is whether this topic has enough good coverage to build at least a basic article, not if Wikipedia uses it now or not even whether the Wikipedia article is full of tags indicating problems with verification. However, once you identify a subpar article and find adequate sourcing that demonstrates notability, please fix the article.
- Notability is not temporary, but attention over a sufficiently significant period of time is needed. Once an article meets GNG, it doesn't need ongoing coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not allow advertisement or promotion, so if, after considering all sources out there, the article about the topic will resemble a newspaper article or an ad, particularly if coverage of the topic was not sustained over time, it will not be notable.
- Do not create articles about a person only known for a single event. If you believe you need an article, describe the event instead.
Content must be verifiable
[edit]![]() | This page in a nutshell: We summarize knowledge, so anything you present must be supported by a source, or preferably multiple, and you must prove it. Do not make stuff up if you don't have the sources, because others are allowed to remove whatever you made up. Follow what your sources say, and avoid interpreting them beyond what is explicitly said in the sources. |
All article content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, i.e. all content must be supported by the reference attached to the information.[x] The source should be cited inline and directly support[y] what you write.[z] Other editors should be able to clearly identify the author, title, publisher, page/chapter/section, date, DOI, ISBN etc. of the source so that they could check it themselves (see WP:Citing sources for technical information). The source may NOT be your beliefs, opinions, your conviction that "this is the truth", unpublished information/ideas or whatever you make up.
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Editors may determine by consensus that even if the content is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the article, though it may belong elsewhere. If you want to retain content, it is up to you to rally consensus for it.
It is your responsibility to provide a citation to the content you add or want to retain or restore. If you are challenged when doing that, it is up to you to prove that the source indeed supports the content well enough. Make some research yourself and try to find a good source that supports the information, whether you want to delete or retain the information. If the information is not cited inline but there are some general references, find the specific fragments which support the text. Also, remember that exceptional claims require an exceptional quality and amount of sources, particularly when such statements are odd, not covered by reliable sources but would otherwise seem important or would turn mainstream assumptions on their head.
You may remove any content that is not verifiable. If you don't feel comfortable about that, you may add a {{citation needed}} template for unsourced information, {{verification needed}} to request verification and {{failed verification}} if the source does not support the text. In any case, leave a note on the article's talk page, or the talk page of the user who added it, so that people know why you did it. If you want to delete verifiable content, first see if you can fix it yourself - if you can, apply the fix; only delete it if you can't see a way to improve it. An exception: remove any unsourced/poorly sourced content about living people/existing groups of people immediately, don't wait.
Accessibility of the source doesn't matter much. Do not dismiss a source simply because it is difficult or costly to access or is not available online - ask the editor who cited the source to provide you the quote that supports the content, or alternatively seek Resource Exchange's help. Sources in English are preferred on English Wikipedia - cite them when equal or superior to a foreign-language one - but non-English sources are fine, too, and better use a good foreign-language source than not. When citing non-English sources, provide the quote in the original language and its translation. For the translation, if available, use that from a reliable source; if it doesn't exist, you may prepare your own but you are fully responsible for its accuracy. Avoid machine translation. If your grasp of the foreign language is not so good, better consult translators who are willing to help than try to understand the source yourself, particularly in articles about living persons.
Do not conduct original research on Wikipedia
[edit]Original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[aa] Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Examples may be your philosophical essay or results of some research you did in the laboratory - these are not allowed as content until they appear in a reliable source. In particular, do not create hoaxes,[ab] whatever your reason may be, including to illustrate a point you may have. This is because hoaxes are not a constructive way to test Wikipedia's ability to self-correct. Worse, they damage its reputation and, more importantly, disinform the reader, who often take what is written on Wikipedia at face value. For similar reasons, do not write patent nonsense to Wikipedia articles (whether random strings of characters, lorem ipsum or an incomprehensible word salad).
A special case of original research is improper editorial synthesis. Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In other words, you are not the one who frames facts, indicates their importance or suggests or asserts opinions on them.
To say whether something is improper synthesis, you have to understand what the sources say, what the text says and whether any assertions in the text align with what the sources mean. If they do, this synthesis is proper. There is no hard-and-fast way to detect improper synthesis. You may avoid improper synthesis accusations by clearly demarcating which parts of the text are supported by which reference.
Some things are not improper synthesis. Summarising or explaining something is not improper synthesis is the general meaning of the concepts explained or summarised is preserved. Neither is translation or transcription. Uploading original images is fine so long as the image does not serve to illustrate or introduce unpublished concepts, including through captions, and is not manipulated to distort facts or positions on the image. If the consensus is that they are correct and meaningfully reflect sources, routine calculations, particularly basic arithmetical operations, are permissible as well.[ac] Direct comparison of statistics is OK if methodologies are the same. Finally, interpreting certain sources, like a map, an image, a chart or a graph is acceptable if there is consensus that the way you are interpreting them is correct and meaningfully reflects sources.
Privacy of living people
[edit]Some content about a living person is verifiable,
Use reliable sources
[edit]![]() | This page in a nutshell: When editing Wikipedia, you should be able to distinguish sources according to various criteria presented below. You should base your articles on up-to-date published reliable secondary (or tertiary) sources whose creators are completely independent from the subject(s) of the article. Be cautious when using reliable sources that are not at the same time independent or secondary, and avoid unreliable sources. Medical and scientific subjects, as well as articles about living people, require higher standards |
All sources can be divided according to several classifications - whether the source is reliable or unreliable, independent or not, and how far it is removed from the event or phenomenon described. These classifications are independent of each other.
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
[edit]All sources, can be divided, in order of increasing distance from the event or phenomenon discussed, as primary, secondary or tertiary sources. Grasping this distinction is vital to determine which sources may be used to justify notability, and which sources you may use to base your articles on. It is worth remembering that a source may contain elements from more than one type,[ad] or that the source type may change depending on the purpose it is used for.[ae] The properties of the sources, with their examples, are given below.
Type | Properties | Examples |
---|---|---|
Primary |
|
Audio recordings, photographs, breaking news articles, interviews, legal documents, autobiographies, works of art or literature; research reports, lab results, announcements of a discovery |
Secondary |
|
Biographies, opinion essays, feature stories in newspapers,[q] dictionaries/encyclopedias (also tertiary), histories, monographs; literature reviews, meta reviews, medical guidelines published by major health organizations, letters to the editor |
Tertiary |
|
Dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanachs, fact books, manuals, textbooks, edited/lay scientific books |
By independence
[edit]To answer if a source is independent, ask yourself this question: does the author have a conflict of interest when publishing the source the way they did? The answer will be yes if the author is in any sort of financial or legal relation with topic (e.g. they are employed, contracted, sponsored or are a client or investor of the company; they are a relative or a lawyer of the person described; or they have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose by writing about it); or if the content is produced or influenced by a person or organisation who has a stake in it (e.g. sponsored content, most self-published content, advertisements, public relations communications, propaganda, advocacy, or lawsuits). Always make sure that you know the ultimate beneficiary of the published content, as in some cases authors will try to hide their true sponsors to lend credence to their "independent" message (e.g. astroturfing campaigns).
Since primary sources tend to be accounts written by people directly involved in the event, primary sources will often not be independent. However, independence is not the same as lack of bias. A person doing computer hardware reviews may be more lenient when reviewing AMD's GPUs or CPUs than those of the competition (say, Nvidia or Intel), but if they are not being paid or influenced by any of the companies, or if the person doesn't have an ax to grind against any of them, their reviews will be independent. Independence also does not indicate reliability.
By method of publication
[edit]A published source is any source that was made available to the public in some form and is still accessible through any means. The medium through which it is published (radio, TV, print, online, etc.) does not matter, but you still must check against other criteria, particularly the reliability checkpoints.
There are two ways content may be published. One way to do that is to submit your content for evaluation (e.g. peer-reviewed scientific articles or news articles going through internal copyediting and fact-checking). However, a lot of content is self-published. This may be a blog post, a social media reply, a book published through a vanity press or even a lawsuit or a patent.
By reliability
[edit]Finally, any source may be classified according to the degree of reliability we can accord to the source. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions in sieving out reliable and questionable sources. Reliability falls on a spectrum - no source is 100% or 0% reliable for anything. What you should be looking for is a good source that very likely is reliable for given content. Context matters greatly. Age does too, because it may be that older sources contain outdated or since-debunked information; or sources that are too new haven't gone through enough scrutiny to see if their conclusions are valid. Article quality may also vary, so try to avoid making broad assumptions about a given outlet and analyse each article on its own merits. Sources that are reliable for a given statement will tend to:
- Be peer-reviewed or have other robust internal quality checks (editorial oversight)
- Have a reputation for accuracy and correct any mistakes they may have made, including confirmed by winning defamation lawsuits on the merits
- Come from an expert within the field of expertise that the article addresses
- Cite their sources for their assertions and which sources confirm that assertion, but these references should not be circular reporting
- Be widely and consistently cited by other sources, often without added comments or caveats
- Have stood the test of time, including by having veracity of their reporting or research results confirmed by other sources
- Discuss the statement in depth and not just in passing, even if the trivial mention comes from an otherwise reliable source
- Not engage in spreading gossip, rumours, other types of yellow journalism, or outright misquoting or mis-/disinformation
- Disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence content (e.g. clearly mark sponsored/promoted content and distinguish opinion pieces from factual reporting)
- Be independent from the topic discussed
- Not be self-published or user-generated, with some exceptions
- Not advance fringe theories or ideas widely considered extremist (but reliable sources may be biased)
Policies of usage
[edit]General
[edit]- You should base your articles on up-to-date published reliable secondary or tertiary sources whose creators are completely independent from the subject(s) of the article. The tertiary sources will be particularly useful when primary and secondary sources contradict each other. Reputably published primary sources may occasionally be used, particularly alongside secondary/tertiary sources, but not to assert notability, not to base your article on and only for straightforward and uncontroversial facts. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself, instead use secondary and/or tertiary sources. Do not copy full-text primary sources to Wikipedia if the text is uncomfortably long or if it is copyrighted.[ag]
- Strive towards the highest-quality sources available. Scholarship is generally the preferred type of sources (though see Medicine and other sciences section for what scholarship should and should not be cited).
- Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources.
- If a source is of questionable reliability (i.e. it fails many of the criteria listed above) or is sponsored/promoted by a third party, do not use it.
- Self-published sources should not normally be used, either. This includes any user-generated content (e.g. any social media or forum posts, any blogging website, Ancestry.com, Discogs, Fandom, Famous Birthdays, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Know Your Meme, ODMP, TV Tropes, WhoSampled etc.).
- Exception 1. Self-published or questionable sources may be used de minimis for statements about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. They do not need external vetting. However, the claims should:
- be neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional
- not involve third parties, or events not directly related to the subject
- appear in such a way that there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and authorship, and
- these sources should not be a primary basis for the Wikipedia article
- Exception 2. A self-published source containing claims from established expert on the subject matter of the claim, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, may be used. These may not refer to claims about other living people, whatever they are.
- Note. Sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues may be deprecated for Wikipedia usage. Their usage is only allowed when there is specific consensus for using this particular source in a particular context; all other uses are not allowed.
- Exception 1. Self-published or questionable sources may be used de minimis for statements about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. They do not need external vetting. However, the claims should:
- Be cautious when covering a subject that is currently part of breaking news coverage. Distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify the information; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats. Replace any initial breaking news coverage with better-researched and verified sources as soon as they become available.
- Even if a news outlet is generally reliable, headlines and subheadlines may not be used for statements of fact.
- Opinion pieces are reliable for opinions of the author, but usually not for assertions of fact.
- To ensure that quotes are not in any way altered, cite the original source containing the quote if available, or else use a reliable secondary source, preferably with a citation to the original.
- Machine learning algorithms, chatbots or artificial intelligence may generate text, including citations, in response to your queries, but these answers are not reliable sources. If you use AI to write Wikipedia, you must vet any claim and source AI generates before publication.
The rules here try to make sure that Wikipedia is a reliable source. However, for the purpose of the policy for reliable sources, because Wikipedia is user-generated, it is not a reliable source for its articles unless the information contained in it is cited to relevant reliable sources (use these sources instead). Do not use Wikipedia mirrors, forks or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources (it will be a case of circular reporting). The only exception is when Wikipedia articles, policies, guidelines or other content are used to describe Wikipedia itself - in these cases, follow standard procedures for treating primary sources. Avoid undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.
If unsure about any given source, consult the reliable sources noticeboard for help. Make sure you ask about the source in a particular context. Some sources discussed repeatedly and in different contexts are aggregated at the list of perennial sources, but this list is not an exhaustive guide over which sources you should, or should not use.
Medicine
[edit]Articles about medical topics have more stringent requirements so that we are sure that any health information we provide is accurate. Even though we are not meant to give medical advice - read the Medical disclaimer - many people will not read that page and in fact will trust any information as written in the article. This is one of the reasons we want to avoid disinforming people. General reliability rules apply here, too, unless this section contains more stringent policies.
An important term for medical articles is biomedical information. This concept covers information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human or animal health (as in any health-related information that a doctor or a veterinarian may apply while doing their jobs). Also, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. The concept includes, among others:
- Attributes of a disease or condition: Symptoms, causes, prognoses, transmission, molecular/cellular basis of a disease and what biological factors (enzymes, ions, viruses, living creatures) may play a role in the disease
- Attributes of a treatment or drug: How, if it does, and to what degree, a treatment or drug works; dosage and timing information; side effects, benefits, and disadvantages; and factors that may affect any of the aforementioned types of information
- Medical decisions: identification, testing and diagnosis of a condition; usefulness and efficiency of said methods; what the standard of care is and whether a specific treatment, practice, or decision meets the standard of care; (expected) results of a medical decision; what constitutes a medical error and whether it occurred.
- Health effects: whether a given variable affects human health; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc.
- Population data, epidemiology: number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), genetic studies, etc. (but disease origins are not necessarily biomedical)
- Biomedical research: Information about biomedical research (including clinical trials) that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them.
Top to botom: Procter & Gamble,[5] Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology;[6] general hierarchy of guidelines from scientific bodies (HTA=health technology assessment); general hierarchy of scholarly books
Other things related to health issues (commercial and business information; costs and economics; historical information, outdated treatments; societal, cultural and religious issues and portrayals; legal/regulatory issues; training descriptions; etymology/lexicon of disease and issues in medical ethics; labelling something conventional/Western/alternative medicine; or claims that relate to hospital admission but do not give a causal relationship between a factor and a disease) are not biomedical information.
This distinction is important because biomedical information requires a higher standard of sourcing, as outlined below. Non-biomedical information does not need sources compliant with guidelines mentioned below, but scholarship is still preferable.
- You should base your articles on up-to-date published reliable secondary or tertiary sources whose creators are completely independent from the subject(s) of the article.
- Your job is to summarise scientific consensus, therefore:
- Primary sources (research reports, lab/trial results, announcements of discovery, case reports, anecdotes etc.) should be used sparingly, if at all. In particular, in vitro or animal studies should not be used for claims about human health as their results are not necessarily reproducible in humans, and primary studies should not be used to imply that the treatment is generally recommended/avoided. Speculative proposals are generally inadmissible as sources. Synthesis of several primary studies to attempt to gauge scientific consensus is improper. For the rare cases when it may be proper to mention it (e.g. a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) with surprising results), you must explicitly mark this as a conclusion from a single study, and remove it in favour of secondary sources, once they appear, or remove altogether if they are not interested in the study. This does not apply to primary sources that are widely recognised as seminal, replicated, and thus often-cited. These may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews.
- For as much as it is possible, rely on the highest classes of evidence when writing an article. These include recent, authoritative review articles (particularly those summarising several RCTs, or better still, a review of review articles);[ah] statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies or by widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO); textbooks; or scholarly monographs. Systematic reviews are normally of higher quality than narrative reviews and are less prone to bias, but both are generally acceptable.[ai][8] However, reviews of literature in otherwise primary sources (e.g. in "background" or "previous research" sections) are less reliable because their criteria of usage are often those that will fit the results of the study. Letters to the editor and commentary are equivalent to opinion pieces in news outlets, and thus should not be used for facts. Present any major controversies and/or contradictions that these guidelines have, as they help the reader understand the strength of consensus. Do not reject a higher-level source in favor of a lower one because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level sources.
- Keep your sources up-to-date, but not at the cost of compromising source quality. Generally review cycles last about 5 years, so whenever available, substitute older reviews with reviews from the newest cycles; but also try to let them stand the test of time to see if they are accepted by the scholarly community. Sources such as Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally reliable even if they are older than 5 years, as they are periodically reviewed. History sections may include older reviews for reference.
- We welcome researchers to help us, even if you have or may have a conflict of interest (CoI) of any kind. However, you should follow standard procedures outlined for users who have a CoI.
- A lot of scholarly content is hidden behind a paywall. However, this is not a good reason to only base your article on free/open-access publications, particularly if this causes you to miss out on good but paywalled sources. Neither is it a good excuse to only base your work on the article abstract, as it may omit important details for sake of summarising the work in one or two short paragraphs. You may need to use the Wikipedia Library, visit a medical library, pay to read it, or ask someone at the Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if none of this is possible, the editor may need to find a different source.
- When editing within a given discipline, learn about the best journals and books within it (third-party metrics may help identify top journals within the field). You may also use third-party selections to help you. The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals".[9] The 2003 Brandon/Hill list includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library, is no longer maintained but the journals are still of high quality.[10] Doody's Core Titles assembles basic textbook titles within each discipline, though these may be expensive and only available in specialist libraries.[11] Core general medical journals include the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (British Medical Journal), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Core basic science and biology journals include Nature, Science and Cell.
- Self-published sources should generally be avoided. This includes sources published on preprint servers (have not undergone peer review) or through predatory journals and publishers, whose peer review is usually at best deficient and at worst non-existent, and whose business practices are often questionable. Beall's List (website) contains a list of suspect titles; updates are added separately by an anonymous post-doctoral researcher. On Wikipedia, the CiteWatch compilation (updated twice monthly) and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector script can be leveraged to facilitate the detection of predatory journals. You may also see this article[12] for additional guidance.
- Article quality within a journal may vary, but if a journal is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE,[13] or the article's content is outside the journal's normal scope, these are big red flags. Occasionally the article may still prove valid, as evidenced by big citation counts (but make sure these are not inflated by self-referencing).
- Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources, as they are commonly sponsored by companies or industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported.[14][15] They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal.[16] Sponsored supplements, and those where CoIs are not clearly declared, should not be cited. However, some supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. Public health agencies may also sponsor supplements, which will also be fine as sources.
- Books take longer to publish, so it is imperative that they be new, unless you need them for historical perspective. Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources (post-grad and specialist literature is generally better than graduate/undergraduate-level literature). Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized biomedical encyclopedias from established publishers are also good. Books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes. However, popular science books should not be generally used for biomedical information, even if they provide an accessible overview of the subject.
- Popular press articles are not a good source for biomedical information (they are primary sources, and besides usually retell the results of some published research, often inaccurately so due to exaggerations, omission of important context, misunderstanding the science, etc.). However, good lay explanations of a piece of research may be cited alongside the original source.
- Doctoral dissertations are hit-and-miss, as the level of vetting may differ greatly and they may for a large part be a primary source. Make sure that the PhD thesis you cite has been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties; prefer monographs based on a PhD thesis than the PhD thesis itself, if available. If it does not conform to these criteria, better avoid it. Masters theses should generally be avoided unless they are influential in the field of study.
- Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. UpToDate is less preferred as it is not possible to reference specific versions of their articles, and archives do not exist. In any case, check against general reliability criteria, and see the list of frequently discussed resources.
Sourcing for other science articles should generally strive towards the spirit of the guidelines presented here. Points 3-6 apply in particular to any article, including scientific articles. Editors have not yet agreed to a guideline text that covers other sciences specifically.
Fringe theories
[edit]For all purposes, the best sources to use are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The sources that can demonstrate fringeness have to be of good quality, but not necessarily peer-reviewed. Apply parity of sources (like-for-like sourcing) - because fringe theories are not published in peer-reviewed outlets (as in properly peer-reviewed, not simply claiming to have peer review), you don't need peer-reviewed sources either (but they are of course preferred if available and of good quality); likewise, don't remove the descriptions of adherents' views in the articles about the fringe theory just because they were not published reputably or in peer-reviewed outlets.
Fringe sources (including purported "journals") can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. Otherwise they are unusable in Wikipedia contexts.
Biographies of living people (BLPs)
[edit]Special restrictions apply to articles about living people. Primary sources should generally be avoided, unless cited to augment a secondary source covering the same material. Do not use court records, trial transcripts, any public records or other public documents to support assertions or to cite information about a living person. Even if the source is otherwise reliable, avoid publishing gossip, rumours, yellow journalism content, content attributed to anonymous sources, and circular reporting.
Additionally, never use self-published sources authored by other people to support a claim about a living person article subject. If the article subject published a source themselves, information contained in it may be used to support claims about the subject. Standard restrictions apply to this kind of self-published content.
Whatever your source, avoid repeating gossip. Your material should be relevant to a disinterested article about the subject; dismiss it if it is not. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
Furthermore, questionable and self-published sources about living people should not be included in "External links" or "Further reading" sections.
Stick to a neutral point of view
[edit]![]() | This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. |
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable and this principle cannot be overridden by any kind of change.
What this means
[edit]- Avoid stating opinions, or seriously contested assertions, as facts, and vice versa. Opinions should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc., and not stated directly ("in Wikipedia voice" or "in wikivoice"). Where different reliable sources clash as to the facts, treat the assertions as opinions. However, facts about which there is little doubt should be stated in Wikipedia voice and the wording should not make it appear as if they were contested or just opinions. Assert facts, not opinions. Before starting to edit Wikipedia, make sure you can distinguish factual and opinion statements.
- Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source, whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoint presented there.
- Properly indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
- Consider all reliable sources available on the topic, but do not suggest which are more important. Do not cherrypick sources that suit your views on how the subject should be covered. Also, do not attempt to overcompensate the bias in one reliable source with a different bias (or lack thereof) in other source(s) by giving more weight to the other sources than would otherwise be normally due. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to counter what your believe are systemic biases in academia or the news. As an extension of this rule,
- Do not overemphasise events from a certain period, including recent events. Update the article with new information, but make sure that treatment of a subject does not get too much attention in a given timeframe unless there are clearly more events of high importance. Divide the article on a time scale and see how much space it dedicates to a certain timeframe, and then ask if these proportions would be reasonably expected in an article written, say, 50 years later.
- Where applicable, cover the topic from all geographic perspectives. Many editors here are Anglophone, and most are from developed countries, and will generally reflect things happening in their cultural circles. However, whenever applicable, articles should cover from all national perspectives, whether they speak English or some other language, and not just stick to one geographical area, even when the sources are more readily available for them. For example, the general article about the police should not only present the American view and legal practice of police officers.
What this does not mean
[edit]- Having only "objective" content. When writing articles, you should not think about what is "objectively true" and stick to that. This is not the point, and engaging in philosophical disputes about objectivity is not the point, either. Rather, you should strive towards representing and describing the disputes and viewpoints fairly ("being 'objective'", in other words), accurately and as completely as the context permits. That is, you should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.
- A ban on all content that exhibits any bias. The rule bans editorial bias, but it does not ban properly sourced bias. We allow biased reliable sources, so we will generally also allow properly formulated content sourced to that reference even if it may introduce bias. In fact, unless the source promotes fringe or extremist ideas, bias is not generally a factor in reliability. The proper course of action with a reliable biased source is the same as with a non-biased source: position its opinion according to the principle of due weight, using all reliable sources available. Use the best ones whenever possible.
- "He said, she said". This rule does not say you must present all viewpoints equally at all times; in fact, doing so may create a false balance. The section about clashes of opinions has guidance about what to do instead.
- A licence to delete non-neutral content. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so if something is not ideal, don't rush to delete it. If you see a section written with editorial bias, fix it towards an editorially unbiased version. Only kill it with fire in cases where policy urges you to do so, such as when the content mis-/disinforms, cannot be fixed in any way, vandalism or defamatory claims about living people.
Article titles
[edit]In general, article names should strive to be neutral. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue. However, a non-neutral name that is more widely known in reliable sources (e.g. "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper") is preferred if readers better recognise the discussed concepts under the non-neutral name, even if the names may appear to pass judgment.
In some cases, choosing an article title without favouring either side is impossible. In this case, other criteria may kick in. For example, aluminium, sulfur and caesium are preferred IUPAC names for these chemical elements, hence aluminum (NAmE), sulphur (BrE) and cesium (NAmE) are only redirects. Derry/Londonderry is another contentious example, which was resolved by compromise on the Manual of Style level. In such articles, mentioning alternative names and the controversies over their use is appropriate, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed. Avoid combining alternative names in an article title, unless specific rules say otherwise.
Article structure
[edit]Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, make sure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral, so that it treats the opinions on the topic with due weight and it does not become a point-of-view fork. Avoid any stylistic or formatting approaches that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Also, generally avoid segregation of content into different regions, subsections, stylistic devices such as footnotes, or other formatting elements, based on an apparent point of view of the content, so that it does not become a "proponents say... opponents say" dialogue, or create an apparent hierarchy of facts favouring a selected viewpoint, or tarnishing some other viewpoint. Instead fold the debates into a single narrative.
Clashes of opinions
[edit]Very often opinions on a certain topic will clash with each other. In these cases, articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By "fairly" we mean that the larger the prominence of the view as published and determined in reliable sources, the more attention in the article it should deserve. This is the principle of "due weight". When the prominence of contradicting viewpoints is about the same, simply describe all such viewpoints and use secondary or tertiary sources to describe the disagreement between them from a disinterested viewpoint. Note that we speak all the time of "published reliable sources" - relative prominence of opinion among editors or readers does not matter at all. It also doesn't matter if you agree with them, if you believe that the opinions are outrageous or they contradict your faith - your duty is not to express your opinions, but to summarize published knowledge in reliable sources.
Place the views in appropriate context. Majority views should never be represented as minority views and given only as much attention as a minority view would normally merit, and vice versa. Whenever relevant, you must always indicate what constitutes a majority and a minority view, including in articles dedicated to minority views, make clear when you explain the minority view, and show how the minority view diverges from the majority. You should also identify and explain any controversies regarding aspects of the minority view.
Some views will be notable enough for their own articles, and so an article will treat specifically about a minority view. Do not make them only about the minority view - make sure you explain how it relates to a majority view. A common mistake is to describe minority or fringe view, some speculation or plausible but unaccepted theories without comment alongside an accepted majority view (including mainstream scholarship), so that it appears as if it had equal validity to the majority viewpoint. This is false balance and, due to its misleading nature, must be avoided. Tiny minority and fringe views about a certain topic should generally be omitted or at most, if appropriate, given a very short mention and a See also article link if available. Note that in all these cases, we do not assert an opinion on whether they are right, we only describe the theories' tenets and how reliable sources see it. Do not try to prove an unknown/barely known idea on Wikipedia - you should first publish your thoughts in a reliable source.
This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material in articles as well.
Important things should get more coverage
[edit]The concept of "due weight" is about neutral representation of differing opinions, but in a way, this also applies to relative prominence of content according to its importance to the topic. In short, the more important this event or criticism is for the topic, the larger chunk of the article should be dedicated to it. As a corollary, trivial life events (say, a DUI conviction that did not alter the person's life significantly) should at most get a mention. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
Similarly, do not shoehorn mentions of controversy around pseudoscientific notions, conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas into articles unrelated to them just because we mention a certain fact that these adherents object to. Sometimes you'd have to make certain assumptions when writing the article. Therefore, you'd often omit discussions around fringe ideas, and it's OK. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. Discussions about flat Earth will not belong in the vast majority of contexts describing the planet. When writing about drug concentrations, it is not a good idea to tell everyone every time that there is a fringe belief homeopaths promote that more dilute solutions make for more "potent" drugs.
Writing neutrally
[edit]Sensitive subjects
[edit]Sensitive subjects require extra care to keep a neutral point of view, because there are often a lot of arguments surrounding the treatment of these topics or these ideas may appear repulsive to many. Here are three of the most-debated topics, fringe theories, religion and living people.
Fringe theories and pseudoscience
[edit]Fringe theory is a term that is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. This generally includes pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, pseudohistory, cases of negationism (e.g. Armenian genocide denial or the Lost Cause of the Confederacy) or esoteric claims about virtually any subject. By their definition, fringe theories have little acceptance in mainstream opinion and/or the scientific community.
The principle of due weight applies here doubly, which means that you must make it clear to the reader what is the majority opinion, how it relates to the fringe theory being discussed and clearly describe fringe theory as such. You should describe the current level of the fringe opinion's acceptance among the relevant academic community. You should also make the opinions of real experts in the relevant field prominent when discussing the theory.
Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. They will often propose changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon that allegedly occurs (but their justification for the change does not pass muster) and will often ignore evidence debunking their claims. However, naming a certain non-mainstream idea "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia voice will often be contentious, and in some cases not warranted at all. Current guidance in the area distinguishes four categories of cases that may appear:
- Obvious pseudoscience: theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus (e.g. perpetual motion), may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
- Generally considered pseudoscience: theories which have a following, such as astrology or homeopathy, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and be called that way.
- Questionable science: theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. There will usually be a reasonable amount of academic debate about this subject. Questionable science will also include bad science (e.g. poorly conducted research or research fraud), but bad science is not necessarily pseudoscience.
- Alternative theoretical formulations in science: if a theory has a following within the scientific community, or if a hypothesis is generated by researchers within the field of expertise and it's not yet in the mainstream, it is not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Some ideas may even someday become accepted once an appropriate mechanism is found to explain certain phenomena (but don't try to predict the future and insert some Galileo gambits into the article).
Note that pseudoscience only applies to purportedly scientific claims that actually are far from it, which you must document by using reliable sources (as you should to assert that an idea is accepted in the scientific community). Regardless of the outlandishness of the claim, if it does not purport to be scientific, it is not pseudoscience. In particular, religious beliefs should not be considered through the lens of pseudoscience (though it may be appropriate if proponents attempt to use the beliefs to negate established science, as in creationism/intelligent design).
Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. It is best to use peer-reviewed sources independent of the subject for this purpose, but other reliable sources are also allowed. However, if you can find no such source, it is very likely the topic is not notable after all.
Religion
[edit]Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from the religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. New religions may incorporate new information and adopt their doctrines to new circumstances, which you should describe. However, do not try to demonstrate that a certain religion or its branch is superior or inferior to some other religion and/or branch - our job is just to tell what the beliefs are, what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices and account for how they developed.
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, myth, sect, cult and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Make sure you use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
Living people
[edit]Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 20 August 1909 [
]), or reasonably inferred to have been born within 115 years if the date of birth is unknown, is considered a living person unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Anyone born at least 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. The restrictions for biographies of living people (BLPs) also extend for two years after the subject's confirmed death.BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, in a non-partisan manner and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.
Wikipedia article is a work in progress, so it is OK for most articles to have temporary issues because they will be eventually remedied. However, this does not apply to living people. Factual or neutrality issues in biographies of living people must be addressed immediately, including through deletion if necessary to maintain fairness to the subject, as such errors may cause real-life consequences.
Notes
[edit]- ^ This principle is important because we can't just cover every possible situation in these rules. However, the rules exist for a good reason because they will cover the vast majority of cases and they are already an accepted standard. You need to have a very good reason to ignore the rules; it's not like you can say that, ignore the rest of the page and do as you please.
- ^ Certain databases can be created for internal Wikipedia purposes to aid in deploying templates. For instance, Template:Inflation relies on a database of indices so that Wikipedia editors can easily convert a certain price from a given year to a price in today's currency. This is done to aid comprehension for the reader
- ^ Spinning out the statistics in a separate article for readability purposes is acceptable (2012 United States presidential election's stats are in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election and are summarised in the main article).
- ^ On Wikipedia-related topics, you may publish an essay in your userspace (User:) or on meta-wiki. Otherwise, consider starting a blog
- ^ As an exception, deceased Wikipedians have their own internal Wikipedia portal to grieve the community's loss. This still is not reason enough to create a full-blown Wikipedia article about the editor
- ^ a b There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but you should generally provide multiple sources. Do not use primary sources for this purpose, as they are not as detached from the event. Some sources do not qualify because they are themselves trivial news coverage or would be one of the things that Wikipedia is not. If there are few sources, you may still create the article but you have to verify that the few sources you have reflect a neutral point of view, are credible and provide sufficient detail. The fewer sources you have, the less the chance the topic is notable. We require secondary sources as a basis for articles. Tertiary sources may occasionally be used to assert notability, but you must primarily rely on secondary sources. If the same person or organization creates multiple publications (particularly if in a series or in the same periodical), or if multiple outlets/people publish same or very similar stories, or even if the works are superficially different but still rely on the same sources and thus essentially say the same thing, for notability purposes these works will normally count as a single source.
- ^ a b To illustrate the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" (in detail) coverage
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM
- This article by the National Post[1] is a great source to establish the notability of Coalition Avenir Québec or Premier François Legault, whose deeds are covered there in detail. However, it might not be as good to establish notability of Legault's chief of staff, Martin Koskinen, as detail about him is not as plentiful.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "in high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
- ^ "Significant contribution" may mean a lot of things. First, make sure you understand which field this academic operates in, and define it. If it is broad enough (major discipline or significant subdiscipline), it's good. Very narrow research areas should be avoided unless the person actually leads the area.
After that, see if the person:
- Published a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation counts or several extremely often cited papers in peer-reviewed literature (number of works alone doesn't count, the quality does). Although you may generally use reviews to write articles, reviews of the person's work should be in selective scholarly publications to count towards notability, Journals reviewing almost all kind of work (e.g. Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH in mathematics) do not count.
- Pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. To demonstrate it, you need several academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, and these should show that the person is widely credited for the breakthrough and that it is widely considered significant.
- Had a publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift in their honour in selective academic presses or journals. Scientific conferences, lectures, or awards named to honour an academic, or honorary degrees may also help establish notability. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks, invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are not good enough.
- ^ A person given with a major academic award is automatically notable. Major awards include the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc. A person given a less significant but still highly academically prestigious award may also be notable. Examples: awards from notable academic societies and notable foundations and trusts. You may use these to help establish notability by recognition in the academic's field of study. Achievements at academic student competitions at high school or university level do not contribute to notability. Nor do biographical listings or awards from vanity presses/vanity-press-like entities (American Biographical Institute, Marquis Who's Who etc.)
- ^ These include presidents, rectors or chancellors (or vice-chancellors in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, directors of highly regarded, notable academic independent research institutes or centres (not a part of a university), presidents of notable national or international scholarly societies, etc. Lesser officials, or officials temporarily acting in the highest offices, are not automatically notable.
- ^ The first photograph of a star (other than the Sun) was obtained in 1850.[3] The first asteroid discovered photographically was 323 Brucia in 1891.
- ^ Arguments here may include: how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age
- ^ Possible criteria: whether the book is published by an academic press (it is an important factor if it is), how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media (some technical books may be so complicated very few people understand them), the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions
- ^ Most movies in this category will also pass criterion 1, but some may still be excluded. What is a "major award" is yet to be established, but some obvious examples include Academy Awards, the Palme d'Or, the Grand Prix from Cannes and Emmys. Awards from major festivals such as the Venice Film Festival or Berlinale should also count towards notability.
- ^ There is no firm criterion on what is a "major film-producing country". Generally if a country produces fewer than about 20-25 films per year, it can be said to be not a major film-producing country. Refer to appropriate sourcing for the statistics, for example here.[4] The point is to make sure that important films in small markets are still covered, particularly in countries without good widespread internet connectivity, online film archives and/or whose libraries and journals are not readily available for most English Wikipedia editors.
- ^ Beware of using this criterion in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop. An example would be a musician who was "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because that musician had been in them.)
- ^ a b A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven and are more in-depth than traditional news stories.
- ^ Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians.
- A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
- An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers.
- An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
- ^ This includes authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and so on. For people related to music, consult the Music SNG. Entertainers (actors, models, comedians, etc.) are covered below
- ^ This guideline applies to people engaged in show business, which includes actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. This also includes any people who engage in "athletic theatre", or sports-related events which are at least partially predetermined or scripted
- ^ A likely notable road race meets any one of the following criteria:
- It has an international elite (as defined by the IAAF standards for that year) field of at least 5 different nationalities.
- It receives broadcast or cable television coverage beyond the local market (if coverage is through the internet, the site must be independent of the sport, for example Universal Sports).
- It is a directly competitive meeting between several notable performers (at least 5).
- It has been the site of exceptional performances or records (bests).
- It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
- It has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years,
- ^ Historical equivalents are: $25,000 tournament (1978-2007), $50,000 tournament (2008–2022), roughly based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year
- ^ Examples:
- Probably the most obvious one: people post all sorts of stuff on Facebook or Twitter, but no local meme, shitpost, troll or Internet fight will be notable because they appear on any of the notable social media. Even a user may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but not every post is.
- Jacob Zuma was the president of South Africa. His children are not notable just because their father was the top politician in the country; this also applies to his spouses.
- Björk is a famous singer and songwriter. Not all of the songs she makes are notable because "Björk wrote them"
- Walmart is the largest company by revenue in the world. This doesn't mean all of its senior corporate officers below C-suites are notable. It also doesn't mean that all trademarks Walmart owns are notable. Not all of its products are as well just because Walmart sells them. Not all of Walmart's ventures or internal divisions are notable.
- ^ An exception to this requirement may be when the information is widely known to an average layman. For example, the statements "the capital of Russia is Moscow" or "sunflower is a plant" does not need a citation of its own as it is a commonly known fact.
- ^ A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source
- ^ An exception the community commonly recognises is codified in MOS:LEADCITE. In short, because lead sections are supposed to summarise and repeat what is in the article, citing information in the lead is not compulsory because it is already in the text. However, if the lead includes quotations and material that was challenged or is likely to be challenged, you still have to provide a citation. When in doubt, better place a reference next to the content.
- ^ By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere, in any language, online or offline—even if no source is currently named in the article. If there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source and can be found, it does not violate the original research prohibition. It is still a verifiability problem.
- ^ Even though you should not create hoaxes, you may create an article about a hoax if the topic is notable
- ^ If challenged or unsure the calculation is "routine", you can present it in a footnote
- ^ For example, a research article may contain a review of previously published research literature - a secondary source, but also announce new discoveries or sharing measurements, for which it is a primary source
- ^ For example, a feature-length news outlet article about police corruption will usually be a secondary source; but for an article that describes media portrayals of police corruption, this will be an original data point and thus a primary source.
- ^ A publication that just did routine calculations (or other things that are not original research) on primary sources, such as raw data points, is not a secondary source. For example, when a pollster publishes the results of its opinion survey, it summarises raw data points (people's answers, i.e. primary sources) into percentages, but this calculation is not novel analysis and is a straightforward application of maths, so a report on poll results is still a primary source
- ^ If the source is in the public domain but is too long, you can copy it to Wikisource and cite relevant small fragments. If the source is short enough, you can copy it whole. If the source is copyrighted, only small fragments can be cited under the fair use principle.
- ^ Primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete[7] and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources.
- ^ Reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Such reviews typically do not contain primary research but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources. Systematic reviews use sophisticated methodology to address a particular clinical question in as balanced (unbiased) a way as possible. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary (or sometimes secondary) studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question.
References
[edit]- ^ Lévesque, Catherine (2022-08-26). "Who is François Legault? The unapologetic, apparently unbeatable Quebec leader". National Post. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
- ^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
- ^ "The Great Refractor". Harvard College Observatory. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
In 1850 [...] the first daguerreotype ever made of a star, the bright Vega, was taken by J.A. Whipple working under W.C. Bond
- ^ Kanzler, Martin; Simone, Patrizia, eds. (2023). Focus 2023: World Film Market Trends. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory - Council of Europe.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ "Evidence-Based Decision Making: Introduction and Formulating Good Clinical Questions | Continuing Education Course | dentalcare.com Course Pages | DentalCare.com". www.dentalcare.com. Archived from the original on 4 Mar 2016. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
- ^ "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence | CAPhO". www.capho.org. Archived from the original on 21 February 2016. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
- ^ Robinson KA, Goodman SN (January 2011). "A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials". Annals of Internal Medicine. 154 (1): 50–5. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007. PMID 21200038. S2CID 207536137.
- ^ Greenhalgh T (September 1997). "Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)". BMJ. 315 (7109): 672–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.672. PMC 2127461. PMID 9310574.
- ^ "Abridged Index Medicus (AIM or "Core Clinical") Journal Titles". National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
- ^ Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
- ^ "Doody's Reviews and Core Titles". Teton Data Systems Health. 2024. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
- ^ Grudniewicz, Agnes; Moher, David; Cobey, Kelly D.; Bryson, Gregory L.; Cukier, Samantha; Allen, Kristiann; Ardern, Clare; Balcom, Lesley; Barros, Tiago; Berger, Monica; Ciro, Jairo Buitrago; Cugusi, Lucia; Donaldson, Michael R.; Egger, Matthias; Graham, Ian D.; Hodgkinson, Matt; Khan, Karim M.; Mabizela, Mahlubi; Manca, Andrea; Milzow, Katrin; Mouton, Johann; Muchenje, Marvelous; Olijhoek, Tom; Ommaya, Alexander; Patwardhan, Bhushan; Poff, Deborah; Proulx, Laurie; Rodger, Marc; Severin, Anna; Strinzel, Michaela; Sylos-Labini, Mauro; Tamblyn, Robyn; van Niekerk, Marthie; Wicherts, Jelte M.; Lalu, Manoj M. (2019). "Predatory journals: no definition, no defence". Nature. 576 (7786): 210–212. Bibcode:2019Natur.576..210G. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. PMID 31827288. S2CID 209168864.
- ^ To determine if a journal is MEDLINE indexed, go to this website, and search for the name of the journal. On the journal page, under the heading "Current Indexing Status", you can see whether or not the journal is currently indexed. Note that journals that have changed names or ceased publication will not be "currently" indexed on MEDLINE, but their indexing status, when they were being published, can be viewed under other headings on that same page.
- ^ Nestle M (2 January 2007). "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?" (PDF). Public Health Nutrition. 4 (5): 1015–1022. doi:10.1079/PHN2001253. PMID 11784415. S2CID 17781732. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2019.
- ^ See this discussion of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.
- ^ Fees F (2016), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-05, retrieved 2019-01-12 Conflicts-of-interest section Archived 2018-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, [Last update on 2015 Dec].