Jump to content

Wikipedia:Leaks are questionable sources

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 14 February 2024 (ce add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
For Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations, and Wikipedia:Copyrights § Linking to copyrighted works.

Common issues: Leaks are hard to verify and can violate copyright. 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.

Normally, when leaks of information are published, they usually are done so by an "anonymous insider" or a hacker. Leaks that are promotional in nature or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions are questionable sources. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Even if verified, 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.

Biographies of living persons

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Leaks and other contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

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.[note 1] 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.

Self-published leaks

Anyone can self-publish a leak. 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.[2]

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. 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.[note 2]

There are living persons and organisations who leak material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

  1. it 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 subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Notes

References

  1. ^ "Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues". American Library Association (ALA). Archived from the original on May 26, 2015.
  2. ^ 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."

See also


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Leaks_are_questionable_sources&oldid=1207288925"