11.314
suntingan
Javasatu:Sumber terpercaya: Perbedaan antara revisi
tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan |
|||
| Baris 1: | Baris 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{short description|Content guideline for determining the reliability of a source}}{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{short description|Content guideline for determining the reliability of a source}}{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}</noinclude> | ||
{{redirect2|WP:Reliability|WP:RS|the WikiProject| | {{redirect2|WP:Reliability|WP:RS|the WikiProject|Javasatu:WikiProject Reliability||WP:RS (disambiguation)}} | ||
{{for|community input on the reliability of a source| | {{for|community input on the reliability of a source|Javasatu:Reliable sources/Noticeboard}} | ||
{{for|a list of frequently discussed sources| | {{for|a list of frequently discussed sources|Javasatu:Reliable sources/Perennial sources}} | ||
{{for|Wikipedia ''policy'' on reliable sources| | {{for|Wikipedia ''policy'' on reliable sources|Javasatu:Verifiability#Reliable sources}} | ||
{{subcat guideline|content guideline|Reliable sources|WP:RS|WP:RELY|WP:RELIABLE|WP:RELIABILITY}} | {{subcat guideline|content guideline|Reliable sources|WP:RS|WP:RELY|WP:RELIABLE|WP:RELIABILITY}} | ||
{{nutshell|Wikipedia requires [[WP:CITE#Inline citations|inline citations]] for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and instead just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners help page]].}} | {{nutshell|Wikipedia requires [[WP:CITE#Inline citations|inline citations]] for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and instead just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners help page]].}} | ||
<!--EDITORS, PLEASE NOTE: | <!--EDITORS, PLEASE NOTE: | ||
BEFORE ADDING MATERIAL TO THIS PAGE, PLEASE CHECK THAT IT IS NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN [[ | BEFORE ADDING MATERIAL TO THIS PAGE, PLEASE CHECK THAT IT IS NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN [[Javasatu:Verifiability]] OR [[Javasatu:No original research]], WHICH ARE THE POLICY PAGES ON SOURCES. REPETITION IS POINTLESS, AND INCONSISTENCY IS WORSE THAN POINTLESS. MANY THANKS.--> | ||
{{Guideline list}} | {{Guideline list}} | ||
Artikel Wikipedia harus didasarkan pada '''sumber terpercaya dan diterbitkan''', memastikan bahwa {{strong|semua pandangan mayoritas dan minoritas signifikan}} yang muncul dalam sumber tersebut tercakup (lihat Javasatu:Sudut pandang netral). Jika tidak ada sumber terpercaya yang dapat ditemukan mengenai suatu topik, [[ | Artikel Wikipedia harus didasarkan pada '''sumber terpercaya dan diterbitkan''', memastikan bahwa {{strong|semua pandangan mayoritas dan minoritas signifikan}} yang muncul dalam sumber tersebut tercakup (lihat Javasatu:Sudut pandang netral). Jika tidak ada sumber terpercaya yang dapat ditemukan mengenai suatu topik, [[Javasatu:Notability|Javasatu tidak boleh memiliki artikel mengenai topik tersebut.]] | ||
Pedoman ini membahas keandalan berbagai jenis sumber. Kebijakan mengenai sumber adalah [[Javasatu:Keterverifikasian]], yang mengharuskan kutipan sebaris untuk setiap materi yang ditentang atau mungkin akan ditentang, dan untuk semua kutipan. Kebijakan verifikasi diterapkan secara ketat pada semua materi di ruang utama—artikel, daftar, dan bagian artikel—tanpa pengecualian, dan khususnya pada [[Javasatu:Biografi orang yang masih hidup]], yang menyatakan: | Pedoman ini membahas keandalan berbagai jenis sumber. Kebijakan mengenai sumber adalah [[Javasatu:Keterverifikasian]], yang mengharuskan kutipan sebaris untuk setiap materi yang ditentang atau mungkin akan ditentang, dan untuk semua kutipan. Kebijakan verifikasi diterapkan secara ketat pada semua materi di ruang utama—artikel, daftar, dan bagian artikel—tanpa pengecualian, dan khususnya pada [[Javasatu:Biografi orang yang masih hidup]], yang menyatakan: | ||
{{quote|Materi kontroversial tentang orang yang masih hidup ([[ | {{quote|Materi kontroversial tentang orang yang masih hidup ([[Javasatu:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead|in some cases, recently deceased]]) yang tidak memiliki referensi atau referensinya buruk—baik materi tersebut negatif, positif, netral, atau hanya dipertanyakan—harus segera dihapus dan tanpa menunggu diskusi.}} | ||
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 [[ | 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 [[Javasatu:No original research]] and [[Javasatu:Biographies of living persons]]. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see [[Javasatu:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]. | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
{{further| | {{further|Javasatu:Neutral point of view#Good research}} | ||
{{shortcut|WP:REPUTABLE}} | {{shortcut|WP:REPUTABLE}} | ||
[[File:ZoneSystem-Gradient-lines.png|thumb|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.]] | [[File:ZoneSystem-Gradient-lines.png|thumb|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, [[ | Articles should be based on reliable, [[Javasatu:Independent sources|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=== | ===Definition of a source=== | ||
| Baris 36: | Baris 36: | ||
===Definition of published=== | ===Definition of published=== | ||
{{redirect-distinguish2|WP:PUBLISHED|[[ | {{redirect-distinguish2|WP:PUBLISHED|[[Javasatu:Published]] ([[WP:PUBLISH]])}} | ||
{{shortcut|WP:PUBLISHED}} | {{shortcut|WP:PUBLISHED}} | ||
''[[ | ''[[Javasatu:Published|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 archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. | ||
===Context matters=== | ===Context matters=== | ||
| Baris 52: | Baris 52: | ||
===Age matters=== | ===Age matters=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:AGE MATTERS|WP:RSAGE|WP:OLDSOURCES}} | {{shortcut|WP:AGE MATTERS|WP:RSAGE|WP:OLDSOURCES}} | ||
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, [[ | 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, [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence|newer sources are generally preferred in medicine]]. | ||
Sometimes sources are {{em|too}} new to use, such as with [[ | Sometimes sources are {{em|too}} new to use, such as with [[Javasatu:Reliable sources#Breaking news|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). | ||
With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt. | With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt. | ||
Sources of any age may be prone to [[ | Sources of any age may be prone to [[Javasatu:Recentism|recentism]], and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing. | ||
==Some types of sources== | ==Some types of sources== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:SOURCETYPES}} | {{shortcut|WP:SOURCETYPES}} | ||
{{further| | {{further|Javasatu:Verifiability#Reliable sources|Javasatu: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 [[WP:INTEXT|attributed in-text]] where [[WP:ASF|sources disagree]]. | 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 [[WP:INTEXT|attributed in-text]] where [[WP:ASF|sources disagree]]. | ||
| Baris 80: | Baris 80: | ||
===News organizations=== | ===News organizations=== | ||
{{redirect-distinguish|WP:LEAKS| | {{redirect-distinguish|WP:LEAKS|Javasatu:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia}} | ||
{{shortcut|WP:NEWSORG|WP:RSEDITORIAL}} | {{shortcut|WP:NEWSORG|WP:RSEDITORIAL}} | ||
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 agency|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. | 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 agency|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. | ||
Editorial commentary, analysis and [[opinion piece]]s, whether written by the editors of the publication ([[editorial]]s) or outside authors (invited [[op-ed]]s and [[letters to the editor]] from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for [[WP:INTEXT|statements attributed to that editor or author]], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. [[Human interest story|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]]).<ref>{{cite news |last=Miller |first=Laura |date=October 16, 2011 |title='Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |publisher=Salon Media Group |url=https://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/sybil_exposed_memory_lies_and_therapy/ |accessdate=October 17, 2011 |quote=[[Debbie Nathan]] also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016222231/http://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/sybil_exposed_memory_lies_and_therapy/ |archive-date=October 16, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> | Editorial commentary, analysis and [[opinion piece]]s, whether written by the editors of the publication ([[editorial]]s) or outside authors (invited [[op-ed]]s and [[letters to the editor]] from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for [[WP:INTEXT|statements attributed to that editor or author]], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. [[Human interest story|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]]).<ref>{{cite news |last=Miller |first=Laura |date=October 16, 2011 |title='Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |publisher=Salon Media Group |url=https://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/sybil_exposed_memory_lies_and_therapy/ |accessdate=October 17, 2011 |quote=[[Debbie Nathan]] also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016222231/http://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/sybil_exposed_memory_lies_and_therapy/ |archive-date=October 16, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> | ||
* 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.<ref group=notes>Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require [[ | * 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.<ref group=notes>Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require [[Javasatu:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]], and this is policy.</ref> 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.<ref name="Princeton">{{cite web |year=2011 |title=Book reviews |publisher=Princeton |work=Scholarly definition document |url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review |accessdate=September 22, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105055403/http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review |archive-date=November 5, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{cite web |year=2011 |title=Book reviews |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |accessdate=September 22, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910082750/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archive-date=September 10, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> | ||
* Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the 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. With regard to biomedical articles, see also [[ | * Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the 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. With regard to biomedical articles, see also [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]]. | ||
* 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). [[WP:NOTGOSSIP|Wikipedia is not the place]] for passing along [[gossip]] and [[rumor]]s. | * 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). [[WP:NOTGOSSIP|Wikipedia is not the place]] for passing along [[gossip]] and [[rumor]]s. | ||
* Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]].<ref group=notes>A variety of these incidents have been documented by ''[[Private Eye]]'' and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as [[ | * Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]].<ref group=notes>A variety of these incidents have been documented by ''[[Private Eye]]'' and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as [[Javasatu:Vandalism|vandalism]] or otherwise have appeared in newspapers</ref> | ||
* Whether a {{em|specific}} news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. | * Whether a {{em|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 [[List of wire services|wire service]] article. Such sources are essentially a single source. | * Multiple sources should not be asserted for any [[List of wire services|wire service]] article. Such sources are essentially a single source. | ||
| Baris 105: | Baris 105: | ||
===Biased or opinionated sources=== | ===Biased or opinionated sources=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:BIASED|WP:PARTISAN|WP:BIASEDSOURCES}} | {{shortcut|WP:BIASED|WP:PARTISAN|WP:BIASEDSOURCES}} | ||
{{See also| | {{See also|Javasatu:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources}} | ||
Wikipedia articles are required to present a [[ | Wikipedia articles are required to present a [[Javasatu:Neutral point of view|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 matters|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 [[WP:INTEXT|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...". | 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 matters|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 [[WP:INTEXT|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...". | ||
| Baris 112: | Baris 112: | ||
== {{anchor|Self-published and questionable sources}}Questionable and self-published sources == | == {{anchor|Self-published and questionable sources}}Questionable and self-published sources == | ||
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) --> | <!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) --> | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu:Verifiability#Reliable sources}} | ||
===Questionable sources=== | ===Questionable sources=== | ||
{{Shortcut|WP:QUESTIONABLE|WP:QUESTIONED}} | {{Shortcut|WP:QUESTIONABLE|WP:QUESTIONED}} | ||
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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html|work=New York Magazine|title=Fake Facebook news sites to avoid|first=Madison|last=Malone Kircher|date=November 15, 2016|accessdate=November 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116153727/http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html|archive-date=November 16, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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. | 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html|work=New York Magazine|title=Fake Facebook news sites to avoid|first=Madison|last=Malone Kircher|date=November 15, 2016|accessdate=November 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116153727/http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html|archive-date=November 16, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> 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 [[WP:SOURCE|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]] that this guideline requires.<ref name=DM>An example is the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per [[ | Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the [[WP:SOURCE|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]] that this guideline requires.<ref name=DM>An example is the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per [[Javasatu:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|this RfC]].</ref> The ''Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information'' might have a reputation for "[[predatory open access publishing|predatory]]" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.<ref name=Beall1>{{cite journal |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |date=25 February 2015 |title='Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers |journal=[[The Charleston Advisor]] |url=http://eprints.rclis.org/25046/1/Rahman%20and%20Engels_%202015_Predatory%20open%20access%20journals.pdf |access-date=7 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304201837/http://eprints.rclis.org/25046/1/Rahman%20and%20Engels_%202015_Predatory%20open%20access%20journals.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref name="Beall2">{{cite web|last1=Beall|first1=Jeffrey|title=Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers|url=https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170111172306/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/|archive-date=11 January 2017}}</ref> | ||
==== Sponsored content ==== | ==== Sponsored content ==== | ||
{{Shortcut|WP:SPONSORED}} | {{Shortcut|WP:SPONSORED}} | ||
{{see also| | {{see also|Javasatu:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising}} | ||
[[Native advertising|Sponsored content]] is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. 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. | [[Native advertising|Sponsored content]] is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. 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. | ||
| Baris 130: | Baris 130: | ||
===Self-published sources (online and paper)=== | ===Self-published sources (online and paper)=== | ||
{{anchor|Self-published sources|Self-published|SELF}}{{shortcut|WP:RSSELF|WP:RS/SPS}} | {{anchor|Self-published sources|Self-published|SELF}}{{shortcut|WP:RSSELF|WP:RS/SPS}} | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu:Verifiability#Self-published sources}} | ||
Anyone can create a [[personal web page]] or [[self-publishing|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, [[Twitter|tweets]], and posts on [[Internet forum]]s 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 [[WP:IS|independent sources]] about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. | Anyone can create a [[personal web page]] or [[self-publishing|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, [[Twitter|tweets]], and posts on [[Internet forum]]s 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 [[WP:IS|independent sources]] about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. | ||
| Baris 136: | Baris 136: | ||
====User-generated content==== | ====User-generated content==== | ||
{{anchor|User-generated|USERG|UGC|WP:ABLUELINKISNOTASOURCE}}{{shortcut|WP:UGC|WP:USERG|WP:USERGENERATED}} | {{anchor|User-generated|USERG|UGC|WP:ABLUELINKISNOTASOURCE}}{{shortcut|WP:UGC|WP:USERG|WP:USERGENERATED}} | ||
Content from websites whose content is largely [[User-generated content|user-generated]] is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group [[blog]]s (excluding [[ | Content from websites whose content is largely [[User-generated content|user-generated]] is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group [[blog]]s (excluding [[Javasatu:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs|newspaper and magazine blogs]]), [[content farm]]s, [[Internet forum]]s, [[Social networking service|social media sites]], [[fansite]]s, [[Online video platform|video]] and [[Image hosting service|image]] hosting services, most [[wiki]]s and other collaboratively created websites. | ||
Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are [[Ancestry.com]], [[Discogs]], [[Facebook]], [[Famous Birthdays]], [[Fandom (website)|Fandom]], [[Find a Grave]], [[Goodreads]], [[IMDb]], [[Instagram]], [[ODMP]], [[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. | Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are [[Ancestry.com]], [[Discogs]], [[Facebook]], [[Famous Birthdays]], [[Fandom (website)|Fandom]], [[Find a Grave]], [[Goodreads]], [[IMDb]], [[Instagram]], [[ODMP]], [[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. | ||
| Baris 146: | Baris 146: | ||
===Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves=== | ===Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:SELFSOURCE}} | {{shortcut|WP:SELFSOURCE}} | ||
{{See also| | {{See also|Javasatu:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves}} | ||
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information {{strong|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: | Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information {{strong|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: | ||
# The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an [[ | # The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an [[Javasatu:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional claim]]. | ||
# It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). | # It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). | ||
# It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. | # It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. | ||
| Baris 158: | Baris 158: | ||
==Reliability in specific contexts== | ==Reliability in specific contexts== | ||
===Biographies of living persons=== | ===Biographies of living persons=== | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu: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 {{em|any}} page in {{em|any}} [[ | 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 {{em|any}} page in {{em|any}} [[Javasatu:Namespace|namespace]], not just article space. | ||
===Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources=== | ===Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:RSPRIMARY|WP:WPNOTRS}} | {{shortcut|WP:RSPRIMARY|WP:WPNOTRS}} | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}} | ||
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]], i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. | Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]], i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. | ||
| Baris 170: | Baris 170: | ||
Reputable [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary sources]], such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. {{anchor|Wikipedia is not a reliable source}}However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, {{strong|Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose}} (except as sources on themselves per [[WP:SELFSOURCE]]). | Reputable [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary sources]], such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. {{anchor|Wikipedia is not a reliable source}}However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, {{strong|Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose}} (except as sources on themselves per [[WP:SELFSOURCE]]). | ||
[[WP:PRIMARY|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 [[ | [[WP:PRIMARY|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 [[Javasatu:No original research|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 {{tl|primary source-inline}} and {{tl|better source}}, or article templates, such as {{tl|primary sources}} and {{tl|refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. | When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{tl|primary source-inline}} and {{tl|better source}}, or article templates, such as {{tl|primary sources}} and {{tl|refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. | ||
| Baris 176: | Baris 176: | ||
===Medical claims=== | ===Medical claims=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:RS/MC}} | {{shortcut|WP:RS/MC}} | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)}} | ||
Ideal sources for {{strong|biomedical assertions}} include [[literature review|general]] or [[systematic review]]s in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable [[medical journal]]s, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or [[medical guideline]]s and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is {{em|vital}} that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. | Ideal sources for {{strong|biomedical assertions}} include [[literature review|general]] or [[systematic review]]s in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable [[medical journal]]s, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or [[medical guideline]]s and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is {{em|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=== | ===Fringe theories=== | ||
{{seealso| | {{seealso|Javasatu: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. | 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. | ||
| Baris 187: | Baris 187: | ||
===Quotations=== | ===Quotations=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:RS/QUOTE}} | {{shortcut|WP:RS/QUOTE}} | ||
{{further| | {{further|Javasatu: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 [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT|make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article]]. | 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 [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT|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. | 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 [[ | Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see [[Javasatu:No original research]]). | ||
===Academic consensus=== | ===Academic consensus=== | ||
| Baris 208: | Baris 208: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact {{em|or}} opinion: {{strong|Never use [[Self-publishing|self-published]] books, [[zine]]s, websites, webforums, [[blog]]s and [[twitter|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 {{section link| | There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact {{em|or}} opinion: {{strong|Never use [[Self-publishing|self-published]] books, [[zine]]s, websites, webforums, [[blog]]s and [[twitter|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 {{section link|Javasatu:Biographies of living persons|Reliable sources}} and {{section link|Javasatu:Biographies of living persons|Using the subject as a self-published source}}. | ||
The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at {{Section link| | The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at {{Section link|Javasatu:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves}}. | ||
===Breaking news=== | ===Breaking news=== | ||
{{Shortcut|WP:RSBREAKING}} | {{Shortcut|WP:RSBREAKING}} | ||
{{Further| | {{Further|Javasatu:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops}} | ||
{{See also| | {{See also|Javasatu:Notability (events)#Breaking news}} | ||
Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but [[ | Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but [[Javasatu:NOTNEWS|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''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wnyc.org/story/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-pdf/|title=The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook {{!}} On the Media|website=WNYC|language=en|access-date=2019-03-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190228030728/https://www.wnyc.org/story/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-pdf/|archive-date=2019-02-28|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 [[ | When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards [[Javasatu:Recentism|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 ''{{Section link|Javasatu:No original research|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}'', ''{{Section link|Javasatu:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources|Examples of news reports as primary sources}}''. | ||
The {{tl|current}}, {{tl|recent death}}, or another [[ | The {{tl|current}}, {{tl|recent death}}, or another [[Javasatu:Current event templates|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 [[Javasatu:No disclaimers in articles]]). | ||
For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see ''{{slink| | For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see ''{{slink|Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Respect secondary sources}}'' and ''{{slink|Javasatu:Reliable sources|Scholarship}}''. ''On the Media'' cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,<ref name="OTMHealthBNCH">{{cite news |last1=Gladstone |first1=Brooke |title=Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Health News Edition {{!}} On the Media |url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-health-news-edition |publisher=WNYC|access-date=23 November 2022 |work=WNYC Studios |date=25 December 2015 |language=en}}</ref> especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable [[WP:PRSOURCE|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 "{{tq|awaiting FDA approval}}" or {{xt|in pre-clinical testing}}" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and,<ref name="Sun202290percent">{{cite journal |last1=Sun |first1=Duxin |last2=Gao |first2=Wei |last3=Hu |first3=Hongxiang |last4=Zhou |first4=Simon |title=Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it? |journal=Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B |date=1 July 2022 |volume=12 |issue=7 |pages=3049–3062 |doi=10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.002 |pmid=35865092 |pmc=9293739 |language=en |issn=2211-3835}}</ref> even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.<ref name="CancerResearchUK">{{cite web |title=How long a new drug takes to go through clinical trials |url=https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials |website=Cancer Research UK |access-date=23 November 2022 |language=en |date=21 October 2014}}</ref> | ||
===Headlines=== | ===Headlines=== | ||
| Baris 231: | Baris 231: | ||
{{Shortcut|WP:RSDEPRECATED}} | {{Shortcut|WP:RSDEPRECATED}} | ||
{{main| | {{main|Javasatu:Deprecated sources}} | ||
{{see also| | {{see also|Javasatu:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|Javasatu: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 [[WP:RFC|request for comment]], usually at the [[WP:RSN|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 theory|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 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 [[WP:RFC|request for comment]], usually at the [[WP:RSN|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 theory|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 [[WP:ABOUTSELF|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 [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe view]]. | A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|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 [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a [[WP:FRINGE|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 farm]]s. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see [[ | 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 farm]]s. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see [[Javasatu:Blacklist]] for other details about blacklisting. | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
=== Templates === | === Templates === | ||
[[ | [[Javasatu:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources]] lists many templates, including | ||
* {{tl|notability}} | * {{tl|notability}} | ||
* {{tl|citation needed}} | * {{tl|citation needed}} | ||
| Baris 248: | Baris 248: | ||
=== Policies and guidelines === | === Policies and guidelines === | ||
{{div col}} | {{div col}} | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Citing sources|Citing sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Fringe theories|Fringe theories]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:No original research|No original research]] | ||
{{div col end}} | {{div col end}} | ||
=== Information pages === | === Information pages === | ||
{{div col}} | {{div col}} | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Common knowledge|Common knowledge]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:External links/Perennial websites|External links/Perennial websites]] | ||
* [[Help:How to mine a source|How to mine a source]] | * [[Help:How to mine a source|How to mine a source]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context|Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying and using independent sources|Identifying and using independent sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying and using primary sources|Identifying and using primary sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Offline sources|Offline sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Reliable sources/Cost|Reliable sources/Cost]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Video links|Video links]] | ||
{{div col end}} | {{div col end}} | ||
=== Locating reliable sources === | === Locating reliable sources === | ||
{{also|Help:Find sources| | {{also|Help:Find sources|Javasatu:Advanced source searching}} | ||
{{div col}} | {{div col}} | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Free English newspaper sources|Free English newspaper sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], a list of frequently discussed sources | ||
* [[List of academic databases and search engines]] | * [[List of academic databases and search engines]] | ||
* [[List of digital library projects]] | * [[List of digital library projects]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:List of online newspaper archives|List of online newspaper archives]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:The Wikipedia Library|The Wikipedia Library]], a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources|WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request]] | ||
{{div col end}} | {{div col end}} | ||
=== Essays === | === Essays === | ||
{{Main| | {{Main|Javasatu:Essay directory#Verifiability and sources}} | ||
{{div col}} | {{div col}} | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Articles on sources|Articles on sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Applying reliability guidelines|Applying reliability guidelines]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Cherrypicking|Cherrypicking]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability|Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Dictionaries as sources|Dictionaries as sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Don't "teach the controversy"|Don't "teach the controversy"]] <small>(phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)</small> | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy|Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (history)|Identifying reliable sources (history)]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (law)|Identifying reliable sources (law)]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (science)|Identifying reliable sources (science)]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying and using tertiary sources|Identifying and using tertiary sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Identifying and using style guides|Identifying and using style guides]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content|NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Reliable source examples|Reliable source examples]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Reliable sources checklist|Reliable sources checklist]] <small>(provides a ref-vetting method)</small> | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Potentially unreliable sources|Potentially unreliable sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Tertiary-source fallacy|Tertiary-source fallacy]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Vanity and predatory publishing|Vanity and predatory publishing]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Wikipedia clones|Wikipedia clones]] | ||
{{div col end}} | {{div col end}} | ||
| Baris 308: | Baris 308: | ||
{{div col}} | {{div col}} | ||
* [[Change detection and notification]] | * [[Change detection and notification]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Current science and technology sources|Current science and technology sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:News sources|News sources]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use | ||
* [[Help:Introduction to referencing/reliable sources quiz|Reliable sources quiz]] | * [[Help:Introduction to referencing/reliable sources quiz|Reliable sources quiz]] | ||
* [[Source criticism]] | * [[Source criticism]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches|Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches]] – ''Signpost'' article | ||
* [[ | * [[Javasatu:WikiProject Reliability|WikiProject Reliability]] | ||
{{div col end}} | {{div col end}} | ||