Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:58, 14 July 2007 view sourceJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits there is no consensus to have these sections here. please do not re-add!← Previous edit Revision as of 07:56, 15 July 2007 view source Piotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,696 edits rv - you are the only one who is objecting to them, there is a consensus to add themNext edit →
Line 49: Line 49:
===Self-published sources (online and paper)=== ===Self-published sources (online and paper)===
:''See ]'' :''See ]''

===Generally acceptable sources===
{{shortcut|]}}
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand:

* Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
* Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
* Books written by widely published authors;
* Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;

Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.

Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources. Note that these are not hard rules, and that sources needs to be always evaluated in the context of the article's subject:
*'''Editorial oversight''' — A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. ''Self published sources'' such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. ]) and other sources with ''editorial oversight'', which is less reliable itself than professional or ''peer reviewed'' journal (e.g. ]). Note that some of a publication's content, such as Op-ed pieces, commentary, announcements, advertising, etc., may have little or no editorial oversight, and could be treated as self-published material.

*'''Declaration of sources''' — A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions may be more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.

*'''Corroboration''' — If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.

*'''Age of the source and rate of change of the subject''' — Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age of the source.

*'''Persistence''' — If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become ''broken''. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should include the date in which the source was retrieved.
These issues are particularly pertinent to Misplaced Pages where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. ] is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{Tl|unreliable}} template.

===Generally unacceptable sources===
{{shortcut|]<br>]}}
Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Misplaced Pages:

* An '''anonymous source''' is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Misplaced Pages, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as ] in '']'', are acceptable, because Misplaced Pages's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source. Similarly, anonymous sources may be used as secondary sources in historical contexts, as in '']'' or other, older texts on Misplaced Pages, but we have to cite a reliable source ''reporting'' on the primary source (e.g. a history-related book).

* An '''unpublished source''' is one that is not publicly available, or that has been distributed only through anonymous channels or forums, and for which a publisher cannot be identified. Unpublished sources may never be used as sources on Misplaced Pages.

*An '''obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.

* A '''confidential source''', i.e. those sources which are considered ''confidential'' by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority, as the original cannot be used to validate the reference.

* A '''questionable source''' is one with no ''independent'' editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, ], and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. ]s are generally also questionable sources because anyone can add to them and there is no guarantee that the information is verified. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see ] of the policy.

*A '''self-published source''' is material, online or in print, that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. The expression "self-published source" may also refer to the author of the material. Personal websites, blogs, Misplaced Pages, and messages on USENET and Internet message boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no independent entity stands between the author and publication; the material may not have been subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is usually not acceptable as a reliable source, with some ].

*A '''Misplaced Pages article, or any article from an open wiki'''. Open ]s, including other language ]s and even articles in this Misplaced Pages (when you find any sourced information on another wiki which you can validate, you can cite that validated source)


==Convenience links== ==Convenience links==

Revision as of 07:56, 15 July 2007

Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable sources. This page explains what sources are considered reliable.

Note that this page is a guideline, not a policy; it thus contains recommendations and allows exceptions. The relevant policies on sources are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of specific sources; see Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources for queries about the guideline; see Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research for discussion of relevant policies.

What is a reliable source?

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for how and when to use self-published and questionable sources.

Why use reliable sources?

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, and Misplaced Pages:Copyrights

Sources are used:

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

If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

Aspects of reliability

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

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

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

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people.

Claims of consensus

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

Types of source material

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

Biographies of living persons

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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

Generally acceptable sources

Shortcut
  • ]

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand:

  • Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
  • Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
  • Books written by widely published authors;
  • Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;

Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.

Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources. Note that these are not hard rules, and that sources needs to be always evaluated in the context of the article's subject:

  • Editorial oversight — A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature). Note that some of a publication's content, such as Op-ed pieces, commentary, announcements, advertising, etc., may have little or no editorial oversight, and could be treated as self-published material.
  • Declaration of sources — A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions may be more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
  • Corroboration — If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
  • Age of the source and rate of change of the subject — Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age of the source.
  • Persistence — If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should include the date in which the source was retrieved.

These issues are particularly pertinent to Misplaced Pages where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

Generally unacceptable sources

Shortcut
  • ]

Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Misplaced Pages:

  • An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Misplaced Pages, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Misplaced Pages's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source. Similarly, anonymous sources may be used as secondary sources in historical contexts, as in Beowulf or other, older texts on Misplaced Pages, but we have to cite a reliable source reporting on the primary source (e.g. a history-related book).
  • An unpublished source is one that is not publicly available, or that has been distributed only through anonymous channels or forums, and for which a publisher cannot be identified. Unpublished sources may never be used as sources on Misplaced Pages.
  • An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.
  • A confidential source, i.e. those sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority, as the original cannot be used to validate the reference.
  • A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Wikis are generally also questionable sources because anyone can add to them and there is no guarantee that the information is verified. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy.
  • A self-published source is material, online or in print, that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. The expression "self-published source" may also refer to the author of the material. Personal websites, blogs, Misplaced Pages, and messages on USENET and Internet message boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no independent entity stands between the author and publication; the material may not have been subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is usually not acceptable as a reliable source, with some exceptions.
  • A Misplaced Pages article, or any article from an open wiki. Open wikis, including other language Wikipedias and even articles in this Misplaced Pages (when you find any sourced information on another wiki which you can validate, you can cite that validated source)

Convenience links

See Misplaced Pages:Convenience links#Reliability

Examples

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

See also

External links

Category: