Misplaced Pages

:Verifiability: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:21, 2 October 2005 view sourceJguk (talk | contribs)15,849 edits rv as spokesman was the original, and they're synonymous anyway← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:52, 26 December 2024 view source SmokeyJoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,272 edits →Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: Per WP:LINKBOXES, with 90-day pageviews of 213,83,1667, only WP:ONUS is justified as the recommended shortcut to this section. All shortcuts will still work. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability of information}}
{{policy}}
{{Redirect|WP:V|discussing particular sources|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|vandalism|Misplaced Pages:Vandalism}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
{{Redirect|WP:PROOF|advice on the use of mathematical proofs|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{policy|WP:V|WP:PROOF}}
{{nutshell|People must be able to check that any of the information within Misplaced Pages articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by ].}}
{{Content policy list}}
{{Short URL box|FVY}}


In the ], '''verifiability''' means that people are able to check that information comes from a ]. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or ]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.{{efn|This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is '''verifiability, not truth'''". See the essay, ].}} If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a ] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its ].
Misplaced Pages should only publish material that is '''verifiable''' and is ].


All material in ], including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an ] to a reliable source that directly supports{{efn|name="directly supports"}} the material:
The goal of Misplaced Pages is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should ] so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.


* ],
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments '''that have already been published by a reputable publisher'''.
* material whose verifiability has been ],
* material whose verifiability is ], and
* contentious material about ].


Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material ] (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a '']'' article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because ] may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.


] is one of three of Misplaced Pages's content-guiding policy pages. The other two are ] and ]. Jointly, these three policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main ]. The three policies are complementary. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. For how to write citations, see ]. Verifiability, ], and ] are Misplaced Pages's ]. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the ].


{{toc limit|3}}
== When adding information ==


== Responsibility for providing citations<span class="anchor" id="Burden"></span><span class="anchor" id="Burden of evidence"></span> ==
Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit''. Editors should therefore be specific, ], and provide references. For example:
{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN}}
{{Redirect|WP:PROVEIT|the editing tool|Misplaced Pages:ProveIt}}
{{Redirect|WP:CHALLENGE|challenging closes|Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing}}
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Try to fix problems}}
All content must be verifiable. '''The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an ] to a reliable source that directly supports{{efn|name="directly supports"|A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present {{em|explicitly}} in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of ]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see ], {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.}} the contribution.{{efn|Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; ]; ]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve ], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.}}


{{anchor|Unsourced}}Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:
<blockquote>A human rights spokesman said that the incident was part of a wider pattern of violence in the region.</blockquote>


* ],
This is difficult to verify. Many spokesmen may have commented on the incident, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches. Consider instead:
* material whose verifiability has been challenged
* material whose verifiability is ], and
* contentious material about ].


The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)&mdash;though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see ] for details of how to do this.
<blockquote>Eliza Twisk of ] said: "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response". ('''', ], ]) </blockquote>


{{anchor|Challenge}}Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports{{efn|name="directly supports"}} the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a ] tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added.{{efn|It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then ] a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{tl|unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.}} When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.{{efn|When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of ]. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.}} If you think the material is verifiable, ] before removing or tagging it.
This is easy to verify. A link to a transcript is provided, readers and editors could contact Channel 4 if they wanted to, and as the exact quote is given, it can be fed into a search engine.


Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how ] also ].
If you clearly understand them well, original documents in a foreign language are better than translations into English since translators are not the original source and can also make mistakes. It is best, however, in English Misplaced Pages, to reference both the original and its translation where available since the original provides the credibility whilst the translation will be easier for others to verify.


==<span id="WP:SOURCES"></span> Reliable sources==
== Checking content ==
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. See ] for details. (This text: ]) -->
{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCE|WP:SOURCES}}
{{Redirect|WP:SOURCE|how to reference sources|Help:Referencing for beginners|the wikitext tag previously labeled <code>&lt;source></code>|Help:Wikitext#syntaxhighlight}}


===What counts as a reliable source===
There are several reasons you might want to check the accuracy of an edit:
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources}}
A {{em|cited source on Misplaced Pages}} is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word {{em|source}} has four related meanings:


* The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
* The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information.
* The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").
* The author has a conflict of interest.
* The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").
* There are other errors in the article, and the entire text needs to be checked.
* The publisher of the work (for example, ]: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").
* The article is the subject of an ].
* The article is about a contentious subject.
* The subject area is one where errors are frequent.
* The statement is implausible on its surface.
* The statement is key to the entry as a whole.
* The statement is overly vague.


All four can affect reliability.
Here's a suggested procedure for verifying content.


Base articles on reliable, ], published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must be '''published''', on Misplaced Pages meaning ''made available to the public in some form''.{{efn|This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.}} '''Unpublished''' material is not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing ] or ].
# If you find a recent change and are not sure whether or not an edit is accurate, add the page and the diff to ]
# If you feel the urge to remove a statement from an article, first check the bottom of the article for references.
# If there are any, check the sources. If the sources are reputable or credible, and you can confirm the statement with reference to them, leave it in; otherwise, continue.
# If there is a talk page, check that. The statement may already have been checked, so there's no need to repeat the procedure. However, if a reference or citation was only given on the talk page, move it to the article to help people who might want to check it in the future.
# Use your common sense to work out what other resources would help, and check them. If you can find credible sources that support the statement using these resources, leave it in; otherwise, continue.
# Move or copy the statement to the talk page, explaining that you have not been able to find a source for the statement, and stating what sources you have checked.
# Optionally, check the article history for who added the statement in the first place, and leave a note on their talk page telling them that their statement is disputed, and directing them to the appropriate talk page.
# Anyone may now feel free to try to find a source to support the statement and produce a citation or link on the talk page.
# If you only copied the statement, wait for a period (probably at least one day), and if no-one has found a reference in that time, remove it from the article altogether.
# If someone does find a reference, the statement should be put back into the article, ''with the newly found reference''. To make it clear which statement used which reference, it might be worth numbering the references and then referring to them in the article like this or like this<sup>1</sup>. Alternatively, use ], which involves adding a brief citation in brackets after the sentence or paragraph &mdash; if it's a book by John Smith that was published in 2005, write (Smith 2005) &mdash; then adding a full citation for Smith 2005 in the References section at the end of the article (Smith, J. ''My story'', Random House, 2005). If no-one finds a reference, the statement can remain on the talk page indefinitely.
# Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory.


If available, academic and ] publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.
== Dubious sources ==


Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected ] publications. Other reliable sources include:
For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform ]. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.
* University-level textbooks
* Books published by respected ]
* Mainstream (]) magazines, including specialty ones
* Reputable newspapers


Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria (see details in ''] and ]'').
Sometimes a particular statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it &mdash; don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example:


====Best sources====
<blockquote>According to the British tabloid newspaper ''The Sun'', the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.</blockquote>
The ] have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.


===Newspaper and magazine blogs===
Personal websites and ] are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Misplaced Pages. See ] for more information.
{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}}
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online ] they call ]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.{{efn|name="EXCEPTIONAL"|Note that any exceptional claim would require ].}} If a news organization publishes an ] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote{{nbsp}}..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em|not}} reliable sources, see {{section link||Self-published sources}} below.


===Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline<span id="Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline"></span>===
==Sources should be in English==
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard}}
Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, though if the best sources are in another language, these should always be provided. The over-riding requirement is proof of accuracy. If a non-English-language source is translated into English by an editor in order to be quoted in an article, the original-language quote should be given alongside it, so that readers and other editors can check the accuracy of your translation. <!--I'm making this next bit invisible because I'm not sure what it means &mdash; If there is no original source in English, but only a translation or restatement in English, then the original source in the foreign languages must be given alongside the English source. Note that, as a last resort, foreign language sources are normally verifiable through translation and so can be acceptable even where no translation currently exists.-->
To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult ], which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular {{em|types}} of sources, see ]. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the ] guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.


==Verifiability, not truth== ==Sources that are usually not reliable==
{{redirect|WP:NOTRELIABLE|Misplaced Pages's own reliability|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source}}
Articles in Misplaced Pages should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is '''verifiability, not truth'''.
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:NOTRS}}


===Questionable sources===
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Misplaced Pages entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Misplaced Pages article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Misplaced Pages entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Misplaced Pages readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or ].


Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on ''themselves'', such as in articles about themselves; see ]. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
Suppose you were firmly convinced that this new information should be published in Misplaced Pages, and that to fail to do so would be intellectually dishonest. How would you go about getting it into Misplaced Pages? For the information to be acceptable to Misplaced Pages, you would have to contact a reputable news organization &ndash; ''The Times'' of London, for example &ndash; and explain to them what the physicist told you. You might have a tape recording of the conversation that you could let them hear; or perhaps they would interview you. Whatever they chose to do with the information, the story would go through a process similar to peer review before being published. It would be checked by a reporter, then by at least one editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it would be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. The physicist would be offered an opportunity to respond, as would his publisher and lawyer, and other members of the academic community would be approached for comment.


] journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.
These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. '''It is this fact-checking process that Misplaced Pages is not in a position to provide''', which is why the policy of ] is an important one.


===<span id="Self-published sources (online and paper)"></span><span id="SELF"></span>Self-published sources===
If ''The Times'' published the story, you could then include the information in your Misplaced Pages entry. However, if you were unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you could only secure publication in a news outlet that did not have a good reputation, then the material would have no place in Misplaced Pages ''even if you knew it to be true''.
<!-- Be aware, when editing the section title, that there is a policy shortcut to this. -->
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't break. See ] for details. (This text: ]) -->
{{policy shortcut|WP:SPS}}
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources|Misplaced Pages:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business|Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works}}
{{redirect|WP:WORDPRESS|the use of Wordpress as a source|WP:RSPWORDPRESS}}


Anyone can create a ], ] a book, or ]. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above), ]s, ]s, ] postings, and ] postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established ], whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by ], independent publications.{{efn|name="EXCEPTIONAL"}} 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.<ref>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 ]s:
== Obscure topics ==
* The 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."
* 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 (DEKloiber, December 1, 2003) states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."</ref> '''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.


===Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves <span id="Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves"></span>===
Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Misplaced Pages. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and ] a place to publish ]. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't break. See ] for details. (this text is produced by {{subst:Anchor comment}}) -->
{{redirect|WP:SOCIALMEDIA|the policy on what Misplaced Pages is not|WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA}}
{{redirect|WP:TWITTER|the external links essay|WP:Twitter-EL|a template used for citing tweets|Template:Cite tweet|community evaluation of Twitter as a source|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter}}
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:ABOUTSELF}}
{{Merge from|section=yes|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source|date=December 2023|reason=Near-exact duplicate sections, even down to the list items.|discuss=Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 80#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE to WP:ABOUTSELF}}
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
# The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an ];
# It does not involve claims about third parties;
# It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
# There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
# The article is not based primarily on such sources.


This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as ], ], ], ], and ].
== Conclusion ==
However, just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is the right place to publish it. See ].


===Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it===
See ] and ] for some suggested criteria for inclusion of biographical articles.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CIRCULAR}}
----
{{Redirect|WP:CIRCULAR|links on a page that redirect back to the same page|MOS:CIRCULAR}}
"''Doveriai no proveriai''" &mdash; Russian proverb (Trust but verify)
{{See also|WP:COPYWITHIN|Misplaced Pages:List of citogenesis incidents|Misplaced Pages:Citing Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source|Misplaced Pages:ABOUTSELF}}

Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages (whether English Misplaced Pages or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Misplaced Pages is a ]. Also, do not use websites ] or publications relying on material from Misplaced Pages as sources. Content from a Misplaced Pages article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing ]. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Ole Bjørn|last1=Rekdal|title=Academic urban legends|journal=]|date=1 August 2014|issn=0306-3127|pages=638–654|volume=44|issue=4|doi=10.1177/0306312714535679|pmid=25272616|pmc=4232290}}</ref>

An exception is allowed when Misplaced Pages itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Misplaced Pages (or a sister project) to support a statement about Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages or the sister project is a ] in this case and may be used following the ]. Any such use should avoid ], ] on Misplaced Pages's role or views, and ]. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Misplaced Pages to inform the reader about the potential bias.

==Accessibility==
===Access to sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Offline sources|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost}}
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see ]).

===Non-English sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:NONENG}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Translators available|Misplaced Pages:No original research#Translations and transcriptions}}

====Citing====
{{anchor|Non-English sources → Citing}}
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the ]. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.{{efn|name=Courtesy}} (See ].)

====Quoting====
{{anchor|Non-English sources → Quoting}}
If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask ] for you.

The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to ]; see the ].

==Other issues==
===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===
{{shortcut|WP:ONUS}}
{{redirect|WP:ONUS|the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability|WP:BURDEN}}
{{main|Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Encyclopedic content}}
{{See also|WP:UNDUE|WP:PAGEDECIDE|WP:PRESERVE|WP:SUMMARY|WP:IINFO}}
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an ], not all verifiable information must be included. ] may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or ]. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

===Tagging a sentence, section, or article===
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Citation needed|Misplaced Pages:Template index/Sources of articles}}
If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template by writing {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles ]. You can also leave a note on the ] asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious ]. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

===Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing===
{{anchor|Exceptional claims require exceptional sources}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG|WP:EXCEPTIONAL|WP:EXTRAORDINARY|WP:ECREE}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories}}
Any exceptional claim requires {{em|multiple}} high-quality sources.<ref>See ]</ref> ] that should prompt extra caution include:
* Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
* Challenged claims that are supported purely by ] or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
* Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a ] to silence them.

==Verifiability and other principles==
===Copyright and plagiarism===
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Copyright|Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism|Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages:MOS#Attribution|Misplaced Pages:CITE#In-text attribution}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:OWNWORDS|WP:YTCOPYRIGHT}}
Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an ], and ] where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per ]. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered ]. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. ''This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as ] or ], where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright.''

===Neutrality===
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCESDISAGREE|WP:SOURCESDIFFER}}
Even when information is cited to ], you must present it with a ] (NPOV). Articles should be based on ]. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in ] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use ]: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an ]. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are ''not'' neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say.

===Notability===
{{further|Misplaced Pages:Notability}}
If no ], ] sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not ]).
However, notability is based on the ''existence'' of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (]).

===Original research===
{{further|Misplaced Pages:No original research}}
The ] policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
# All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be ''attributable'' to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
# Sources must support the material clearly and directly: ] is prohibited by the NOR policy.{{efn|name=Courtesy|When there is a dispute as to whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.}}
# Base articles largely on reliable ]s. While ]s are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the ] section of the NOR policy, and the ] section of the BLP policy.


==See also== ==See also==
<!-- {{Spoken Misplaced Pages|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}} -->
*]

*]
===Guidelines===
* ]
* ]

===Information pages===
{{div col}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}

===Resources===
* ] – links to articles that need citations added
* ] – maintenance templates for articles with sourcing problems
* ] – free access to newspapers, journals, and magazines for experienced editors
* ] – where you can ask for help with checking an individual source

===Essays===
{{div col}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* Wales, Jimmy. , WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.


] {{Misplaced Pages referencing|state=expanded}}
{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}


]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 03:52, 26 December 2024

Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability of information "WP:V" redirects here. For discussing particular sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For vandalism, see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. "WP:PROOF" redirects here. For advice on the use of mathematical proofs, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs.

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: People must be able to check that any of the information within Misplaced Pages articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
Content policies

In the English Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material:

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Misplaced Pages's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Responsibility for providing citations

Shortcut "WP:PROVEIT" redirects here. For the editing tool, see Misplaced Pages:ProveIt. "WP:CHALLENGE" redirects here. For challenging closes, see Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions § Challenging a closing. See also: Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Try to fix problems

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.

Reliable sources

Shortcuts "WP:SOURCE" redirects here. For how to reference sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. For the wikitext tag previously labeled <source>, see Help:Wikitext § syntaxhighlight.

What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources

A cited source on Misplaced Pages is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

  • The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").
  • The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must be published, on Misplaced Pages meaning made available to the public in some form. Unpublished material is not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

  • University-level textbooks
  • Books published by respected publishing houses
  • Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
  • Reputable newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria (see details in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Search engine test).

Best sources

The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Shortcut

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Sources that are usually not reliable

"WP:NOTRELIABLE" redirects here. For Misplaced Pages's own reliability, see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Shortcut

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.

Self-published sources

Shortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources, Misplaced Pages:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, and Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works "WP:WORDPRESS" redirects here. For the use of Wordpress as a source, see WP:RSPWORDPRESS.

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Misplaced Pages is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. "WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter. See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion Shortcut
It has been suggested that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source be merged into this section. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2023.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it

Shortcut "WP:CIRCULAR" redirects here. For links on a page that redirect back to the same page, see MOS:CIRCULAR. See also: WP:COPYWITHIN, Misplaced Pages:List of citogenesis incidents, Misplaced Pages:Citing Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, and Misplaced Pages:ABOUTSELF

Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages (whether English Misplaced Pages or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Misplaced Pages is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Misplaced Pages content or publications relying on material from Misplaced Pages as sources. Content from a Misplaced Pages article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

An exception is allowed when Misplaced Pages itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Misplaced Pages (or a sister project) to support a statement about Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Misplaced Pages's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Misplaced Pages to inform the reader about the potential bias.

Accessibility

Access to sources

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Offline sources, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Non-English sources

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Translators available and Misplaced Pages:No original research § Translations and transcriptions

Citing

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Misplaced Pages. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)

Quoting

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.

The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Shortcut "WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN. Main page: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Encyclopedic content See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Citation needed and Misplaced Pages:Template index/Sources of articles

If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles here. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing

Shortcuts See also: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles

Copyright and plagiarism

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Copyright, Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:MOS § Attribution, and Misplaced Pages:CITE § In-text attribution Shortcuts

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright.

Neutrality

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Shortcuts

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say.

Notability

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Notability

If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). However, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST).

Original research

Further information: Misplaced Pages:No original research

The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

  1. All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
  2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
  3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

See also

Guidelines

Information pages

Resources

Essays

Notes

  1. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". See the essay, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth.
  2. ^ A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.
  3. Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
  4. It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
  5. When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.
  6. This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.
  7. ^ Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  8. ^ When there is a dispute as to whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.

References

  1. 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 "College of St. Catherine Libraries Guide to Chicago Manual of Style" (DEKloiber, December 1, 2003) states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
  2. Rekdal, Ole Bjørn (1 August 2014). "Academic urban legends". Social Studies of Science. 44 (4): 638–654. doi:10.1177/0306312714535679. ISSN 0306-3127. PMC 4232290. PMID 25272616.
  3. See Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Further reading

  • Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.
Misplaced Pages referencing
Policies and guidelines
General advice
Citing sources
Inline citations
Help for beginners
Advanced help
Footnote templates
Find references
Citation tools
(External links)
Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
Categories: