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 15:42, 22 July 2007 view sourceLahiru k (talk | contribs)12,486 editsm →Biographies of living persons: rm underscores← Previous edit Revision as of 09:33, 23 July 2007 view source Huji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,930 edits wikipedia as a source (please refer to the talk page)Next edit →
Line 49: Line 49:
===Self-published sources (online and paper)=== ===Self-published sources (online and paper)===
:''See ]'' :''See ]''

===Misplaced Pages as a source===
Misplaced Pages itself is not generally considered a reliable source. See ] and ].


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

Revision as of 09:33, 23 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, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. The policy of Verifiability advises that editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources; see Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability for queries about the policy.

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 high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about 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#Sources

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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

Misplaced Pages as a source

Misplaced Pages itself is not generally considered a reliable source. See Misplaced Pages:Researching with Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages:Citing Misplaced Pages.

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: