Wikipedia:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 18:46, 4 July 2024 view source WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 117,613 edits →‎Newspaper and magazine blogs: Disputed Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:32, 11 July 2024 view source Pyxis Solitary (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 22,364 edits →‎Self-published sources: C/e. Info refers to two different types of blogs: personal blog and group blog. Next edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 75: ===Newspaper and magazine blogs=== {{policy shortcut\|WP:NEWSBLOG}} ~~{{Disputed~~Some ~~inline\|WP:NEWSBLOG\|date=July~~newspapers, ~~2024\|reason=Breaking~~magazines, ~~news~~and isother ~~not~~news aorganizations ~~type~~host ofonline ~~news column. Also~~[[WP:PRIMARY\|pages, ~~this~~columns isor ~~redundant~~rolling ~~with~~text]] ~~multiple~~they ~~other policies and~~call ~~guidelines~~[[blog]]s.}} These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.{{efn\|name="EXCEPTIONAL"\|Note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources\|exceptional sources]].}} If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY\|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote{{nbsp}}..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em\|not}} reliable sources, see {{section link\|\|Self-published sources}} below.▼ Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY\|columns]] they call [[blog]]s. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources (columns). ▲{{Disputed inline\|WP:NEWSBLOG\|date=July 2024\|reason=Breaking news is not a type of news column. Also, this is redundant with multiple other policies and guidelines.}} These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.{{efn\|name="EXCEPTIONAL"\|Note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources\|exceptional sources]].}} If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY\|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote{{nbsp}}..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em\|not}} reliable sources, see {{section link\|\|Self-published sources}} below. ===Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline<span id="Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline"></span>=== Line 100 ⟶ 99: {{further\|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources\|Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business\|Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works}} Anyone can create a [[personal web page]], [[self-publishing\|self-publish]] a book, or [[WP:Expert editors\|claim to be an expert]]. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or [[group blog\|group]]s blogs (as distinguished from [[#Newspaper and magazine blogs\|newsblogs]], above), [[content farm]]s, [[Internet forum]] postings, and [[social media]] postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established [[subject-matter expert]], whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by [[WP:RS\|reliable]], independent publications.{{efn\|name="EXCEPTIONAL"}} Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.<ref>Self-published material is characterized by the ''lack of independent reviewers'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral [[manifesto]]s: * The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160510203400/https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html University of California, Berkeley, library] states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee." * [https://web.archive.org/web/20111005165358/http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ Princeton University] offers this understanding in its publication, ''Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011)'': "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."