Talk:Twelve-step program

Anonymity

It is repeated in the article that only first names are used, and this leaves the impressions that it is a violation of some rule (or tradition) if someone uses their full name in a meeting. Based on my experience, this is not the case. The tradition states that we must maintain anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films. In the "P47 - Understanding Anonymity" pamphlet, in the Question and Answer section, it is suggested to "Use last names within the Fellowship, especially for election of group officers and other service jobs." Several people at the meetings which I attend use their full names, as do I. It allows us to more specifically identify one another for group purposes, and there are times when group knowledge of full names makes it possible to contact someone when they are needed for help. This is up to the individual and is not considered a violation of the eleventh or twelfth traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.226.164 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@24.228.226.164: this is a fair point, the best approach would be to find something meeting WP:RS to use as a source for this. - Scarpy (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time."

There are DOZENS of twelve step fellowship, each with their own literature and unique language describing the highly diverse and subjective "spiritual awakenings" experienced by their millions of members. There is no way to characterize the manner, or pace by which these "spiritual experiences" arrive. Even in the AA Big Book (just 1 12-step fellowship), the main text description of a "sudden, white light" experience is at odds with the "gradual" experience described in Appendix 2. The statement takes one description from Appendix 2, and generalizes it to a broadly held belief, which seems dubious at best.Bryan Hopping ^T 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopping In twelve-step fellowships, "spiritual awakening" is believed to most frequently develop slowly over a period of time. I suppose we could say something like "most frequently, but not always." to clarify. I'm struggling to see what you're objecting too. - Scarpy (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Scarpy How can we claim to make a statement about what "is believed" by "most members" of "all 12-step fellowships"? That is a VAST number of people, all across the world. Is this

"WP:NOR" redirects here and is not to be confused with WP:WikiProject Norway. "WP:OR" redirects here and is not to be confused with WP:WikiProject Oregon.

For raising issues with specific articles, see Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

Outside Wikipedia, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources, not their own original research.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified.

Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the No original research noticeboard.

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Using sources

Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.

The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Reliable sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

However, note that higher standards than this are required for medical claims.

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. See self-published sources for exceptions.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, Wikipedia:Based upon, and Wikipedia:Published

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

"WP:PRIMARY" redirects here. For the article naming guideline, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.

  Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

  1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
  3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
  7. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

  Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

  Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

Synthesis of published material

See also: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and Wikipedia:Citing sources § Text–source integrity

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily such material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

What is not original research

Original images

See also: WP:Manual of Style/Images § Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, and WP:Image use policy § Image titles and file names

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Images.

Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace; see WP:Image use policy § AI-generated images.

Translations and transcriptions

See also: Wikipedia:Translation

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources.

Acceptable media

Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

Routine calculations

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.

Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.

Related policies

Verifiability

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all challenged or likely to be challenged material and all quotations need a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at WP:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Neutral point of view

Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

See also

Guidelines

• Citing sources
• Conflict of interest § Citing yourself
• No original research examples
• No original research noticeboard—discussions of specific article content suspected of being OR
• Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Templates

• {{Original research}}—used to warn of original research
• {{Original research section}}—to warn of original research in an article section
• {{OR}}—inline tag used to warn of original research
• {{Synthesis}}—used to warn of unpublished synthesis
• {{AEIS}}—used in talk/noticeboards to remind that analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims require secondary sources
• Template messages/Disputes—lists other warning templates related to OR, among others

Supplemental pages

• Core content policies § History, an overview of the origin of this policy
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• These are not original research
• What SYNTH is not
• When to cite § When a source or citation may not be needed

Essays

• Cherrypicking
• Dictionaries as sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Party and person
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles
• 1.5 sources
• You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

Research help

• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
• The Wikipedia Library

Further reading

• Wales, Jimmy. Crackpot articles, mailing list, July 12, 2003.
• Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003.
• Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)
• Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", mailing list, December 3, 2004

External links

• YouTube video demonstrating the dangers of original research

? The only source listed for this statement is a book written in 1939, so the source is over 80 years old.

"WP:RS", "WP:IRS", and "WP:RELIABILITY" redirect here. For other uses, see WP:RS (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability.

For community input on the reliability of a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For a list of frequently discussed sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

For the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

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.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Overview

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Good research

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited.

Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work (see § Reliability in specific contexts, below).

Age matters

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery).

Similarly for breaking news, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source. Articles of recent current events must be periodically updated with new secondary sources.

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Usage by other sources

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.

Some types of sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Scholarship

• Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
• Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
• Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• Predatory journals – Predatory journals are of very low quality and have only token peer-review, if any. These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (Journal hijacking). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. (See also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Predatory journals.)
• Preprints – Repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Zenodo host non-peer-reviewed self-published sources. These include preprints, which are preliminary versions of articles intended for later publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other materials like lecture notes and informal expository writing. These materials are seldom reliable sources, and they are not permitted for medical content. However, they sometimes meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have subsequently been published reliably.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above). Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. (For topics relating to health or medicine, see § Medical claims, below.)
• Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).
• Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
• Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.

Editorial and opinion commentary

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below).

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
• Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

News aggregators

Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages of MSN and Yahoo News. As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy and reliability should be judged based on the original source. Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. 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.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

Sponsored content

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Covert advertising

Sponsored content is a paid advertisement that is formatted to look like an article or other piece of typical content for that outlet. The content may be directly controlled by the sponsor, or the advertiser may pay an author to create the content (e.g., influencer marketing). Advertisements can be cited, but they are non-independent and should be treated as self-published and primary sources in articles. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number, or "Suppl." in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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.

User-generated content

Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below.

Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not.

In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Sources produced by machine learning

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Large language models

Since the AI boom in the early 2020s, generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI" or "GenAI"), specifically large language models (LLMs), has become a common tool to generate and publish material using machine learning (ML). It may not be known or detectable that ML was used to produce a given piece of text.

Content from LLM tools such as ChatGPT and other AI chatbots is not generally reliable. LLMs are trained using text scraped from the internet (including Wikipedia) and suffer many of the same problems as self-published and user-generated content (see § User-generated content, above).

LLMs also have a tendency to "hallucinate" false information, including source citations that look as if they are from reputable publications but do not actually exist. Such spurious material may be reproduced unintentionally by writers, reporters, scientists, medical researchers, and lawyers using chatbots to help themselves produce reports, or maliciously by individuals and companies publishing "fake news".

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Fringe theories

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Parity of sources

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Quotations

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.

When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.

The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs, especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are "awaiting FDA approval" or in pre-clinical testing" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and, even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.

Headlines

News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

Main page: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:Spam blacklist

A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.

A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.

Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.

See also

Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including

• {{notability}}
• {{citation needed}}
• {{unreliable source?}}

Policies and guidelines

• Citing sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Fringe theories
• No original research
• Non-English sources

Information pages

• Common knowledge
• External links/Perennial websites
• How to mine a source
• Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Offline sources
• Reliable sources/Cost
• Video links

Locating reliable sources

See also: Help:Find sources and Wikipedia:Advanced source searching

• Free English newspaper sources
• Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a list of frequently discussed sources
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• List of online newspaper archives
• The Wikipedia Library, a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Essays

Main page: Wikipedia:Essay directory § Verifiability and sources

• Articles on sources
• Applying reliability guidelines
• Cherrypicking
• Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't "teach the controversy" (phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy
• Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Identifying reliable sources (science)
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)
• Reliable source examples
• Reliable sources checklist (provides a ref-vetting method)
• Potentially unreliable sources
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• Tiers of reliability
• Vanity and predatory publishing
• Wikipedia clones
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Ye shall know them by their sources
• You are not a reliable source

Other

• Change detection and notification
• Current science and technology sources
• News sources
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Reliable sources quiz
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – Signpost article
• WikiProject Reliability

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
• "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

&

"WP:RS", "WP:IRS", and "WP:RELIABILITY" redirect here. For other uses, see WP:RS (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability.

For community input on the reliability of a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For a list of frequently discussed sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

For the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

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.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Overview

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Good research

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited.

Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work (see § Reliability in specific contexts, below).

Age matters

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery).

Similarly for breaking news, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source. Articles of recent current events must be periodically updated with new secondary sources.

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Usage by other sources

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.

Some types of sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Scholarship

• Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
• Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
• Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• Predatory journals – Predatory journals are of very low quality and have only token peer-review, if any. These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (Journal hijacking). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. (See also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Predatory journals.)
• Preprints – Repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Zenodo host non-peer-reviewed self-published sources. These include preprints, which are preliminary versions of articles intended for later publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other materials like lecture notes and informal expository writing. These materials are seldom reliable sources, and they are not permitted for medical content. However, they sometimes meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have subsequently been published reliably.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above). Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. (For topics relating to health or medicine, see § Medical claims, below.)
• Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).
• Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
• Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.

Editorial and opinion commentary

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below).

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
• Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

News aggregators

Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages of MSN and Yahoo News. As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy and reliability should be judged based on the original source. Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. 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.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

Sponsored content

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Covert advertising

Sponsored content is a paid advertisement that is formatted to look like an article or other piece of typical content for that outlet. The content may be directly controlled by the sponsor, or the advertiser may pay an author to create the content (e.g., influencer marketing). Advertisements can be cited, but they are non-independent and should be treated as self-published and primary sources in articles. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number, or "Suppl." in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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.

User-generated content

Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below.

Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not.

In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Sources produced by machine learning

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Large language models

Since the AI boom in the early 2020s, generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI" or "GenAI"), specifically large language models (LLMs), has become a common tool to generate and publish material using machine learning (ML). It may not be known or detectable that ML was used to produce a given piece of text.

Content from LLM tools such as ChatGPT and other AI chatbots is not generally reliable. LLMs are trained using text scraped from the internet (including Wikipedia) and suffer many of the same problems as self-published and user-generated content (see § User-generated content, above).

LLMs also have a tendency to "hallucinate" false information, including source citations that look as if they are from reputable publications but do not actually exist. Such spurious material may be reproduced unintentionally by writers, reporters, scientists, medical researchers, and lawyers using chatbots to help themselves produce reports, or maliciously by individuals and companies publishing "fake news".

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Fringe theories

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Parity of sources

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Quotations

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.

When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.

The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs, especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are "awaiting FDA approval" or in pre-clinical testing" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and, even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.

Headlines

News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

Main page: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:Spam blacklist

A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.

A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.

Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.

See also

Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including

• {{notability}}
• {{citation needed}}
• {{unreliable source?}}

Policies and guidelines

• Citing sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Fringe theories
• No original research
• Non-English sources

Information pages

• Common knowledge
• External links/Perennial websites
• How to mine a source
• Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Offline sources
• Reliable sources/Cost
• Video links

Locating reliable sources

See also: Help:Find sources and Wikipedia:Advanced source searching

• Free English newspaper sources
• Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a list of frequently discussed sources
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• List of online newspaper archives
• The Wikipedia Library, a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Essays

Main page: Wikipedia:Essay directory § Verifiability and sources

• Articles on sources
• Applying reliability guidelines
• Cherrypicking
• Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't "teach the controversy" (phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy
• Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Identifying reliable sources (science)
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)
• Reliable source examples
• Reliable sources checklist (provides a ref-vetting method)
• Potentially unreliable sources
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• Tiers of reliability
• Vanity and predatory publishing
• Wikipedia clones
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Ye shall know them by their sources
• You are not a reliable source

Other

• Change detection and notification
• Current science and technology sources
• News sources
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Reliable sources quiz
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – Signpost article
• WikiProject Reliability

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
• "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

apply here. In general, this article has a

"WP:RS", "WP:IRS", and "WP:RELIABILITY" redirect here. For other uses, see WP:RS (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability.

For community input on the reliability of a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For a list of frequently discussed sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

For the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

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.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Overview

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Good research

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited.

Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work (see § Reliability in specific contexts, below).

Age matters

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery).

Similarly for breaking news, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source. Articles of recent current events must be periodically updated with new secondary sources.

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Usage by other sources

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.

Some types of sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Scholarship

• Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
• Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
• Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• Predatory journals – Predatory journals are of very low quality and have only token peer-review, if any. These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (Journal hijacking). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. (See also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Predatory journals.)
• Preprints – Repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Zenodo host non-peer-reviewed self-published sources. These include preprints, which are preliminary versions of articles intended for later publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other materials like lecture notes and informal expository writing. These materials are seldom reliable sources, and they are not permitted for medical content. However, they sometimes meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have subsequently been published reliably.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (see § Scholarship, above). Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. (For topics relating to health or medicine, see § Medical claims, below.)
• Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).
• Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
• Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.

Editorial and opinion commentary

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below).

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
• Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

News aggregators

Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages of MSN and Yahoo News. As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy and reliability should be judged based on the original source. Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. 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.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

Sponsored content

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Covert advertising

Sponsored content is a paid advertisement that is formatted to look like an article or other piece of typical content for that outlet. The content may be directly controlled by the sponsor, or the advertiser may pay an author to create the content (e.g., influencer marketing). Advertisements can be cited, but they are non-independent and should be treated as self-published and primary sources in articles. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number, or "Suppl." in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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.

User-generated content

Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below.

Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not.

In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be minimal; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Sources produced by machine learning

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Large language models

Since the AI boom in the early 2020s, generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI" or "GenAI"), specifically large language models (LLMs), has become a common tool to generate and publish material using machine learning (ML). It may not be known or detectable that ML was used to produce a given piece of text.

Content from LLM tools such as ChatGPT and other AI chatbots is not generally reliable. LLMs are trained using text scraped from the internet (including Wikipedia) and suffer many of the same problems as self-published and user-generated content (see § User-generated content, above).

LLMs also have a tendency to "hallucinate" false information, including source citations that look as if they are from reputable publications but do not actually exist. Such spurious material may be reproduced unintentionally by writers, reporters, scientists, medical researchers, and lawyers using chatbots to help themselves produce reports, or maliciously by individuals and companies publishing "fake news".

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Fringe theories

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Parity of sources

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Quotations

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.

When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.

The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs, especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are "awaiting FDA approval" or in pre-clinical testing" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and, even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.

Headlines

News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

Main page: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:Spam blacklist

A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.

A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.

Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.

See also

Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including

• {{notability}}
• {{citation needed}}
• {{unreliable source?}}

Policies and guidelines

• Citing sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Fringe theories
• No original research
• Non-English sources

Information pages

• Common knowledge
• External links/Perennial websites
• How to mine a source
• Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Offline sources
• Reliable sources/Cost
• Video links

Locating reliable sources

See also: Help:Find sources and Wikipedia:Advanced source searching

• Free English newspaper sources
• Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a list of frequently discussed sources
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• List of online newspaper archives
• The Wikipedia Library, a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Essays

Main page: Wikipedia:Essay directory § Verifiability and sources

• Articles on sources
• Applying reliability guidelines
• Cherrypicking
• Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't "teach the controversy" (phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy
• Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Identifying reliable sources (science)
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)
• Reliable source examples
• Reliable sources checklist (provides a ref-vetting method)
• Potentially unreliable sources
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• Tiers of reliability
• Vanity and predatory publishing
• Wikipedia clones
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Ye shall know them by their sources
• You are not a reliable source

Other

• Change detection and notification
• Current science and technology sources
• News sources
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Reliable sources quiz
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – Signpost article
• WikiProject Reliability

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
• "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

problem. The "Big Book" was written about 100 individual people living in the 1930s. The BigBook is not a reliable source to describe the millions of people involved in dozens of different 12-step programs today.Bryan Hopping ^T 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

basic definition

This intro suggests that a "12-step program" is a sequence of specific actions as recommended in the 12-steps. The common meaning of "12-step program" is much broader. 12-step programs all include certain elements: 1. They all hold meetings of individuals seeking help (no experts) 2. At these "meeting", individuals are encouraged to share openly about their difficulties with compulsive behaviors (addiction), 3. Individuals are encouraged to "get involved" in meetings in other ways, "doing service" or other outreach, 5. These meetings often use "literature" that is common to all meetings of that fellowship to further their understanding and practice of recovery from compulsive behaviors, often this literature references "the 12-steps", but some of it does not, 6. The organization structure connected individual meetings to each other is decentralized and loose. These are the common elements essential to all "12-step programs" : the fellowships, the meetings, the steps themselves, the literature, the service (helping to organize & outreach). This article implies throughout that a "12-step program" is a narrowly defined process delineated by actual text of the 12-steps. It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps." The more common understanding is that AA, NA, GA, etc are all "12-step programs", which are characterized by non-expert, "addicted" members who meet in groups to share/discuss/encourage each other's recovery. The meetings are the central feature, and they are connected to one another through a decentralized organizational structure. Bryan Hopping ^T 01:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You would need a citations stating 1, 2, 3 (I think you skipped 4), 5 and 6.

To your other point It erroneously suggests no distinction between a "12-step program" and "the 12-steps." I'm struggling to see where you're getting this. What you have listed in 1,2,3,5 and 6 are guiding principles and courses of action as stated in the lede A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems. - Scarpy (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)