Wikipedia:Leaks are questionable sources
 | This page in a nutshell: unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles |
 | This is an essay on reliable sources, linking to copyright materials and external links policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Common issues: Leaks are hard to verify and can violate copyright. Some editors allege that it is illegal to link to leaked data or that it is immoral to link to leaks, because it can place people in harm's way or violate privacy.
Leaks of information are any accidental or unauthorized disclosure of, or access to sensitive, protected or confidential data. Normally, when leaks are published, they usually are done so by an "anonymous insider", a whistleblower or a hacker. Leaks that are published to promote or advocate for something or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions are questionable sources. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
Even if verified, leaks are primary sources. Information and interpretation is subject to change, and unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles. Reliable sources that report on leaks can be cited normally.
Notability
[edit]A leak is not notable unless it results in some other action that is notable, such as being directly responded to or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage. Do not add leaks to articles unless a notable consequence of the leak can be properly sourced to the same regular, reliable media sources that would be expected for any other content in the article.
Biographies of living persons
[edit]All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Leaks and other contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Copyright issues
[edit]Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[note 1] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Cryptome, LiveLeak, Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
Self-published leaks
[edit]Anyone can self-publish a leak by putting it online. Self-published leaks are primary sources for the fact that the alleged leak contains or says certain things, but not necessarily for any claims that the contents are true, correct, unfabricated, actually happened, etc.[2]
Self-published leaks may be considered reliable when reported by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published leaks as independent sources about other living people, even if the publisher is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[note 2]
There are living persons and organisations who leak material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Notes
[edit]- ^ "In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a website that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed.[1] However, this remains a developing area of case law.
- ^ Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
References
[edit]- ^ "Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues". American Library Association (ALA). Archived from the original on May 26, 2015.
- ^ Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:
- The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
- Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
- The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."