189:. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is the process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in
651:
understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast for each candidate in an election, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.
334:
self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable.
55:
405:"In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Knowledge policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article." See the ArbCom recommendation:
110:
302:
commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Knowledge articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of
Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
822:
Jimmy Wales has discussed the problem of unpublished novel syntheses of existing material, stating: "Some who completely understand why
Knowledge ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the
505:
Because this is the
English Knowledge, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published
325:
is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable
757:
Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found—except in the case
709:
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be neutral. Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any
384:
be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable
301:
are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and
333:
is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on
Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With
490:
You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of
Knowledge. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of
281:
are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident and the White House's official text of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of
650:
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to
658:
says, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Citations are, of course, still encouraged, and any interpretations, quotations, and
749:
Any reader should be able to verify that material added to
Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a
205:
to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be
506:
translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.
681:. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a đź’•, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Knowledge editors' pictures fill a needed role.
290:) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
385:
source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must
546:
introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material
254:
The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
172:. These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.
673:
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that
Knowledge editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the
196:
282:
attribution on
Knowledge, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew
457:
claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a
695:
Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.
688:
to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to
758:
of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the
630:
definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. This is the editor's opinion; it is original research. If the paragraph attributed the opinion to a reliable source
406:
180:
622:
does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
578:. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "
185:
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative
146:
attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The
604:
by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
555:
413:
397:. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.
306:
454:
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
25:
768:
template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article is unsourced, you can use the
283:
638:
and plagiarism, it would comply with this policy. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source
131:
is an encyclopedia—that is, a comprehensive compendium of knowledge. The threshold for inclusion on
Knowledge is whether material is
35:
This page is about how to attribute to a source. For guidance on providing attribution as required by various licensing schemes, see
612:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the
275:
Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
704:
689:
469:
287:
40:
754:, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.
803:
645:
788:
is available. Absurd unsourced claims and original research should be deleted rather than tagged or moved to a talk page.
742:
44:
36:
263:
914:
520:
654:
Citation exemptions have also been extended to plot summaries of novels, films, and related media. As
Knowledge's
574:
is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position
161:
157:
136:
515:
485:
165:
69:
345:
Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
782:
468:, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and
393:
sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see
797:
662:
533:
151:
61:
425:
677:, or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not
466:
Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources
738:
730:
684:
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using
17:
596:
Here is an example from a Knowledge article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
614:
481:
338:
Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:
169:
65:
394:
772:
500:
29:
21:
886:
879:
824:
269:
443:
surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream
312:
295:
Knowledge articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
8:
475:
193:
contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.
872:
856:
840:
685:
150:
lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no
92:
77:
751:
458:
432:
419:
142:
Although everything on Knowledge must be attributable, in practice, not all material
85:
539:
introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument
147:
509:
561:
60:
This page was proposed as a merger of several core Knowledge policy pages, but a
724:
718:
448:
402:
3. Carefully selected temporary links with regard to developing current events
908:
762:
190:
810:
692:
if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image.
360:
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
668:
494:
378:
well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise
258:
852:
836:
601:
444:
342:
1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
865:
698:
590:" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument
217:
Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:
175:
128:
626:
The whole point of this paragraph is the conclusion that, given the
529:
introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
440:
surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
898:
655:
857:"Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"
841:"Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"
800:, attribution within Knowledge in relation to its licensing terms
618:, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The
436:
should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
197:
Knowledge does not publish original research or original thought
139:
the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.
407:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Use of blogs
892:
674:
608:
Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:
16:"WP:A" and "WP:ATT" redirect here. For Administrators, see
791:
632:
that specifically commented on the Smith and Jones dispute
41:
Knowledge:Plagiarism § Copying material from free sources
326:
sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
64:
resulted in no consensus to adopt it. Please defer to
659:
secondary sources used must be cited in the article.
181:
Knowledge articles must be based on reliable sources
566:Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if
366:
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
72:when actually applying the two to article content.
536:), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
491:interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.
201:Original research refers to material that is not
43:. For attributing in the text of an article, see
906:
363:there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
823:same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy.
357:it does not involve claims about third parties;
901:, a proposal for a wiki for original research.
414:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
154:, Knowledge should not have an article on it.
45:Knowledge:Citing sources § In-text attribution
26:Knowledge:Content assessment/A-Class criteria
525:Material counts as original research if it:
380:has produced self-published material, these
307:Using questionable or self-published sources
806:, maintenance tags that notify of a dispute
778:template; for sections requiring sourcing,
556:Unpublished synthesis of published material
133:attributable to a reliable published source
642:before it can be published on Knowledge.
24:. For criteria for A-class articles, see
592:in relation to the topic of the article.
317:Some sources pose special difficulties:
705:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
570:is published by a reliable source, and
549:in relation to the topic of the article
541:in relation to the topic of the article
246:attributed to a reliable source. It is
228:attributed to a reliable source. It is
907:
710:material related to living persons on
679:propose unpublished ideas or arguments
373:2. Professional self-published sources
895:– a wiki welcoming original research
846:
830:
804:Knowledge:Template messages/Disputes
104:
49:
743:Knowledge:Citations quick reference
348:it is relevant to their notability;
13:
737:Further information and examples:
634:and made the same point about the
187:in relation to the subject at hand
118:All material on Knowledge must be
37:Knowledge:Copying within Knowledge
14:
926:
532:defines or introduces new terms (
158:Knowledge's core content policies
600:Smith says that Jones committed
214:supported by the cited sources.
122:to a reliable, published source.
108:
53:
162:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
816:
721:, not just the article space.
646:What is not original research?
516:Knowledge:No original research
486:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
354:it is not unduly self-serving;
166:Knowledge:No original research
70:Knowledge:No original research
1:
690:Knowledge:Images for deletion
264:Primary and secondary sources
191:biographies of living persons
470:biographies of living people
7:
10:
931:
798:Knowledge:Merge and delete
728:
702:
666:
559:
521:What is original research?
513:
501:WP:V § Non-English sources
498:
479:
423:
417:
310:
267:
135:, not whether it is true.
75:
34:
15:
859:, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006.
843:, WikiEN-l, May 19, 2006.
628:Chicago Manual of Style's
426:Knowledge:Fringe theories
893:Academic Publishing Wiki
739:Knowledge:Citing sources
731:Knowledge:Citing sources
640:in relation to the topic
116:This page in a nutshell:
28:. For attack pages, see
18:Knowledge:Administrators
915:Knowledge verifiability
636:Chicago Manual of Style
620:Chicago Manual of Style
615:Chicago Manual of Style
482:Knowledge:Autobiography
313:WP:V § Reliable sources
170:Knowledge:Verifiability
66:Knowledge:Verifiability
20:. For Arbitration, see
624:
606:
351:it is not contentious;
270:WP:NOR § Using sources
667:Further information:
610:
598:
560:Further information:
499:Further information:
418:Further information:
331:self-published source
311:Further information:
268:Further information:
30:Knowledge:Attack page
22:Knowledge:Arbitration
783:unreferenced section
510:No original research
889:, December 6, 2004.
887:"Original research"
880:"Original research"
827:, December 6, 2004)
825:"Original research"
725:How to cite sources
323:questionable source
882:, December 3, 2004
686:photo manipulation
222:Unsourced material
148:burden of evidence
873:Crackpot articles
811:Sources and notes
752:Harvard reference
299:Secondary sources
242:is material that
240:Original research
126:
125:
103:
102:
922:
860:
850:
844:
834:
828:
820:
787:
781:
777:
771:
767:
761:
461:to silence them.
259:Reliable sources
152:reliable sources
137:Knowledge is not
112:
111:
105:
95:
88:
57:
56:
50:
930:
929:
925:
924:
923:
921:
920:
919:
905:
904:
875:, July 12, 2003
868:
863:
851:
847:
835:
831:
821:
817:
813:
794:
785:
779:
775:
769:
765:
759:
733:
727:
707:
701:
671:
665:
663:Original images
656:Manual of Style
648:
564:
558:
523:
518:
512:
503:
497:
488:
478:
476:Citing yourself
428:
422:
416:
315:
309:
279:Primary sources
272:
266:
261:
199:
183:
178:
109:
99:
98:
91:
84:
80:
54:
48:
33:
12:
11:
5:
928:
918:
917:
903:
902:
896:
890:
885:Wales, Jimmy.
883:
878:Wales, Jimmy.
876:
871:Wales, Jimmy.
867:
866:External links
864:
862:
861:
845:
829:
814:
812:
809:
808:
807:
801:
793:
790:
747:
746:
726:
723:
700:
699:Living persons
697:
664:
661:
647:
644:
557:
554:
553:
552:
544:
537:
530:
522:
519:
511:
508:
496:
493:
477:
474:
463:
462:
455:
452:
449:historiography
441:
415:
412:
411:
410:
403:
399:
398:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
343:
336:
335:
327:
308:
305:
304:
303:
296:
292:
291:
276:
265:
262:
260:
257:
252:
251:
248:unattributable
237:
198:
195:
182:
179:
177:
176:Key principles
174:
124:
123:
113:
101:
100:
97:
96:
89:
81:
76:
73:
62:community poll
58:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
927:
916:
913:
912:
910:
900:
897:
894:
891:
888:
884:
881:
877:
874:
870:
869:
858:
854:
849:
842:
838:
833:
826:
819:
815:
805:
802:
799:
796:
795:
789:
784:
774:
764:
755:
753:
745:
744:
740:
735:
734:
732:
722:
720:
717:
713:
706:
696:
693:
691:
687:
682:
680:
676:
670:
660:
657:
652:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
623:
621:
617:
616:
609:
605:
603:
597:
594:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
563:
550:
545:
542:
538:
535:
531:
528:
527:
526:
517:
507:
502:
492:
487:
483:
473:
471:
467:
460:
456:
453:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
437:
435:
434:
427:
421:
408:
404:
401:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
379:
375:
372:
371:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
346:
344:
341:
340:
339:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
314:
300:
297:
294:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
274:
273:
271:
256:
249:
245:
241:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
215:
213:
209:
204:
194:
192:
188:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
153:
149:
145:
140:
138:
134:
130:
121:
117:
114:
107:
106:
94:
90:
87:
83:
82:
79:
74:
71:
67:
63:
59:
52:
51:
46:
42:
38:
31:
27:
23:
19:
899:Wikiresearch
853:Wales, Jimmy
848:
837:Wales, Jimmy
832:
818:
773:unreferenced
756:
748:
736:
715:
711:
708:
694:
683:
678:
672:
653:
649:
639:
635:
631:
627:
625:
619:
613:
611:
607:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:, therefore
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
565:
548:
540:
524:
504:
489:
465:
464:
431:
429:
390:
386:
381:
377:
337:
330:
322:
316:
298:
278:
253:
247:
243:
239:
234:attributable
233:
230:unattributed
229:
225:
224:is material
221:
216:
211:
207:
203:attributable
202:
200:
186:
184:
156:
143:
141:
132:
127:
120:attributable
119:
115:
729:Main page:
703:Main page:
514:Main page:
391:third-party
389:be used as
232:but may be
602:plagiarism
534:neologisms
480:See also:
459:conspiracy
445:news media
424:See also:
420:WP:REDFLAG
212:explicitly
719:namespace
433:red flags
244:cannot be
129:Knowledge
78:Shortcuts
909:Category
792:See also
714:page in
562:WP:SYNTH
495:Language
430:Certain
208:directly
376:When a
286:, Mark
226:not yet
395:WP:BLP
168:, and
93:WP:ATT
669:WP:OI
387:never
763:fact
741:and
675:GFDL
582:and
543:; or
484:and
288:9:47
284:18:9
210:and
160:are
86:WP:A
68:and
39:and
716:any
712:any
447:or
382:may
911::
855:.
839:.
786:}}
780:{{
776:}}
770:{{
766:}}
760:{{
472:.
329:A
321:A
164:,
144:is
588:C
584:B
580:A
576:C
572:B
568:A
551:.
451:;
409:.
250:.
236:.
47:.
32:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.