User:Marskell/RS versus V

The following is an analysis of Wikipedia:Reliable sources versus Wikipedia:Verifiability as of November 16, 2007. The RS wording is colour coded under four categories.

Redundant but inconsistent OR Novel but conflicting: Similar wording exists on V but in different form OR no such wording exists on V and it appears a contradiction. The most dangerous category as it can lead to policy dispute.
Strictly redundant:: Wording is identical. At best, pointless.
Novel and useful.

This page is a guideline, not a policy: The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people.

What is a reliable source?[edit]

The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Portions of this page use "source" exclusively in the first sense for the sake of clarity, but that does not limit the scope of this guideline.

A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and fact-checked books published by respected publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable a work or publication is. However, it should not be assumed that any of these are actually peer-reviewed or fact-checked just by their recognition status or format.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. However, care must be taken to distinguish between broadly-accepted material on the one hand, and commentary, criticism, novel theories, academic bias, and competing schools of thought on the other. Material from reliable non-academic publications may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Mainstream newspapers and magazines are of varying reliability. Material ranges from neutral reporting of facts to opinion pieces that are not verified. They may be the best or only source for some subjects such as business events or recent popular culture, but should be treated with care. Errors and biases may be repeated from one article to the next, or based on a common news source, so the appearance of a single fact in multiple publications does not necessarily guarantee reliability. This paragraph creates clear conflict with V, which includes newspapers and magazines in the main reliable source list.

Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves, unless no other sources are available. However, any contentious claims should not be repeated, unless made first in reliable sources.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

Why use reliable sources?[edit]

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.

Sources are used:

To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations.

If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Aspects of reliability[edit]

Reliability in general[edit]

Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

Reliability of specific source types[edit]

Scholarship[edit]

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

Original research is not a reliable source[edit]

See No original research

Wikipedia should not be the original source for new research, ideas, interpretations, or analyses. Such original research has not yet been published in a reliable source, and therefore is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. When citing reliable sources, editors must ensure that the sources are not interpreted or analyzed in a novel or non-obvious way.

Extremist sources[edit]

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Self-published sources[edit]

Self-published sources raise reliability concerns. See the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper).

Reliability in specific contexts[edit]

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources[edit]

Shortcut

WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

Biographies of living persons[edit]

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Claims of consensus[edit]

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Other examples[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, Business and Commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

Convenience links[edit]

See Wikipedia:Convenience links#Reliability

The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the Internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, emendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

Where several sites host a copy of the desired resource, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content is most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

External links[edit]

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.