Wikipedia:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 20:53, 29 May 2024 view source Dave souza (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 48,372 edits Undid revision 1226310338 by Dave souza (talk) undo own revert Tag: Undo ← 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 →
(15 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 2: {{Redirect\|WP:V\|discussing particular sources\|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard\|vandalism\|Wikipedia:Vandalism}} {{pp\|small=yes}} {{policy\|WP:V~~\|WP:VER\|WP:VERIFY~~}} {{nutshell\|Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by [[WP:INCITE\|inline citations]].}} {{Content policy list}} {{Short URL box\|FVY}} In the [[English Wikipedia]], '''verifiability''' means ~~other~~ people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources\|reliable source]]. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research\|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.{{efn\|This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is '''verifiability, not truth'''". See the essay, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]].}} If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutral point of view]] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight\|due weight]]. All material in [[Wikipedia:Mainspace\|Wikipedia mainspace]], including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an [[WP:INCITE\|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports{{efn\|name="directly supports"}} the material. The four types are: Line 14: * material whose verifiability has been [[Wikipedia:CHALLENGED\|challenged]], * material whose verifiability is [[Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged\|likely to be challenged]], and * contentious material about [[Wikipedia:~~Biographies~~Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced\|living ofand ~~living~~recently deceased persons~~\|about living people~~]]. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons\|about living people]] (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Line 23: ==Responsibility for providing citations<span class="anchor" id="Burden"></span><span class="anchor" id="Burden of evidence"></span>== {{policy shortcut\|WP:UNSOURCED\|WP:BURDEN\|WP:PROVEIT\|WP:CHALLENGE\|WP:FULLCITE}} {{Redirect\|WP:PROVEIT\|the editing tool\|Wikipedia:ProveIt}} {{Redirect\|WP:CHALLENGE\|challenging closes\|Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing}} Line 29: All content must be verifiable. '''The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation\|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports{{efn\|name="directly supports"\|A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present {{em\|explicitly}} in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link\|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section\|Citations}}, etc.}} the contribution.{{efn\|Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE\|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT\|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus\|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.}} {{anchor\|Unsourced}}Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all: * ~~all~~[[Direct quotation\|direct quotations]], * ~~all~~ material whose verifiability has been challenged * ~~all~~ material ~~that~~whose verifiability is [[Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged\|likely to be challenged]], and * ~~all~~ contentious matter about [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced\|living and recently deceased persons]]. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this. Line 75: ===Newspaper and magazine blogs=== {{policy shortcut\|WP:NEWSBLOG}} Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY\|pages, columns or rolling text]] they call [[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. ===Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline<span id="Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline"></span>=== Line 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."