Wikipedia:Leaks are questionable sources
 | This page in a nutshell: unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles |
 | This essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
 | This is an explanatory essay about the reliable sources, linking to copyright materials and external links policies. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
Common issues: Some editors allege that it is illegal to link to leaked data or that it is immoral to link to leaks, because it can place people in harm's way. Leaks are hard to verify and can violate copyright.
Normally, when leaks of information are published, they usually are done so by an "anonymous insider" or a hacker. Even so, leaks are primary sources. Information and interpretation is subject to change, and unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.
Self-published leaks
Self-published leaks are primary sources for the fact that the alleged leak contains or says certain things, but not necessarily for any claims that the contents are true, correct, unfabricated, actually happened, etc. Self-published leaks may be considered reliable when reported by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published leaks as independent sources about other living people, even if the publisher is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Copyright issues
Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[a] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Cryptome, LiveLeak,Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
Notes
- ^ "In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a website that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed.[1] However, this remains a developing area of case law.
References
- ^ "Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues". American Library Association (ALA). Archived from the original on May 26, 2015.