Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 13 January 2012

To discuss particular sources, see the reliable sources noticeboard. For vandalism, see WP:VAND. For the default Misplaced Pages skin, see WP:VECTOR.

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 WP:V WP:VERIFY WP:SOURCE

This page in a nutshell: Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Misplaced Pages has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion.

To show that it is not original research, it must be possible to attribute all material added to articles to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

When a reliable source is required

Anything challenged or likely to be challenged

• WP:CHALLENGE
• WP:CHALLENGED
• WP:FULLCITE

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Burden of evidence

• WP:BURDEN
• WP:UNSOURCED

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Reliable sources

• WP:SOURCES

What counts as a reliable source

The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Search engine test.

Newspaper and magazine blogs

• WP:NEWSBLOG

Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In a March 2010 ruling, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK commented that it expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use posts left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the 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:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority.

Sources that are usually not reliable

• WP:NOTRELIABLE
• WP:NOTRS
• WP:QS

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Self-published sources

• WP:SPS
• WP:SELFPUBLISH
• WP:BLOGS

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. 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:ABOUTSELF
• WP:SELFPUB
• WP:TWITTER
• WP:SOCIALMEDIA

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

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
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;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it

• WP:CIRCULAR

Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, do not use sources that present material originating from Misplaced Pages to support that same material in Misplaced Pages, as this would create circular sourcing. Misplaced Pages may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

Accessibility

Access to sources

• WP:PAYWALL
• WP:SOURCEACCESS

Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material.

Non-English sources

• WP:NOENG
• WP:NONENG

Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

• When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
• When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.

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. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting 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. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Special care should be used in regard to material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

• WP:REDFLAG

Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. 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.
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are 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 people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles

Copyright and plagiarism

Take care to avoid plagiarism and breaches of copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as far as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Neutrality

All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (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. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that 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 present what the reliable sources say.

Notability

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

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 that a 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

2. Part 2

• Argument from authority
• Misplaced Pages:Citation clutter, an essay
• Misplaced Pages:Core content policies, an essay
• Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), a guideline
• Misplaced Pages:List of free online resources
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Sources of articles
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth, an essay
• Misplaced Pages:When to cite, an essay
• WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• WikiProject Resource Exchange

Notes

1. See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.
2. Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
3. Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 29, 2010.
4. Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources
5. Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases, 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 mentions: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
   • Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it’s made instantly available across the globe."
   • The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition mentions that "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
6. ^ When there is dispute about 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.
7. Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Forgotten Books, 1984; first published 1748, p. 86: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior."

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 policies
• Misplaced Pages content policy
• Misplaced Pages verifiability