Wikipedia:Reliable sources

"WP:RS" redirects here. For other uses, seeWP:RS (disambiguation).

"WP:Reliability" redirects here. For the WikiProject, seeWikipedia:WikiProject Reliability.

For community input on the reliability of a source, seeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

For a list of frequently discussed sources, seeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

For Wikipediapolicyon reliable sources, seeWikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Wikipedia articles should be based onreliable, published sources,making sure thatall majority and significant minority viewsthat have appeared in those sources are covered (seeWikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic,Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing isWikipedia:Verifiability,which requiresinline citationsfor any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular tobiographies of living persons,which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or,in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

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 areWikipedia:No original researchandWikipedia:Biographies of living persons.For questions about the reliability of particular sources, seeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Overview

Further information:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Good research

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,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 sourcingalwaysdepends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source

Asourceis where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example,Random HouseorCambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability.Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition ofpublished

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused withWikipedia:Published(WP:PUBLISH).

Publishedmeans, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that wasmade 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

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources shoulddirectly supportthe information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see alsoWikipedia:Citing sources § Inline citationsandWikipedia:Inline citation).

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work (see§ Reliability in specific contexts,below).

Age matters

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,newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

Sometimes sources are toonewto use, such as withbreaking 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.

Sources of any age may be prone torecentism,and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Usage by other sources

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.

Some types of sources

Further information:Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources,andWikipedia: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 beattributed in-textwheresources disagree.

Scholarship

• Prefer secondary sources– Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (seeWikipedia:No original researchandWikipedia:Neutral point of view).
• Reliable scholarship– Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• Dissertations– Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or fromProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• Citation counts– One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received incitation indexesor lists such asDOAJ.Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author citesthemselvesoften.
• Isolated studies– Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoidundue weightwhen using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex andabstrusefields, such asmedicine,are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such asmeta-analyses,textbooks, and scholarlyreview articlesare preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• POV and peer review in journals– Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• Predatory journals–Predatory journalsare of very low quality and have only token peer-review, if any. These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (Journal hijacking).The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals shouldat bestbe treated similarly toself-published sources.If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respectedaccredited university,and that it is included in the relevant high-qualitycitation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. (See alsoWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Predatory journals.)
• Preprints–Preprints,such as those available on repositories likearXiv,medRxiv,bioRxiv,orZenodoare not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use ofself-published sources,and will always fail higher sourcing requirements likeWP:MEDRS.However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature.

News organizations

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 fromnews agenciessuch asReuters,Interfax,Agence France-Presse,United Press Internationalor theAssociated Press,which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics(see§ Scholarship,above).Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources arechurnalismand should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. (For topics relating to health or medicine, see§ Medical claims,below.)
• 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 (See alsoWikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).
• Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication ofcorrectionsand disclosures ofconflicts of interest.
• Human interest reportingis generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (seeJunk food news).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable informationaboutrumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).Wikipedia is not the placefor passing alonggossipandrumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware ofcircular sourcing.
• Whether aspecificnews story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for anywire servicearticle. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.

Editorial and opinion commentary

Editorial commentary, analysis andopinion pieces,whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invitedop-edsandletters to the editorfrom notable figures) are reliable primary sources forstatements attributed to that editor or author,but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also§ Statements of opinion,below).

• 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.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.
• Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

News aggregators

Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages ofMSNandYahoo News.As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy andreliability should be judged based on the original source.Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines forexternal linksprohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order toverifysuch things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

See also:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present aneutral 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 specificcontext.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 makein-text attributionappropriate, as in "The feministBetty Friedanwrote that... ";" According to the Marxist economistHarry Magdoff... "; or" The conservative Republican presidential candidateBarry Goldwaterbelieved that... ".

Questionable and self-published sources

Main page:Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources

Questionable sources

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.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 thereputation for fact-checking and accuracythat this guideline requires.TheJournal of 100% Reliable Factual Informationmight have a reputation for "predatory"behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

Sponsored content

See also:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Covert advertising

Sponsored contentis 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 thebylineor with adisclaimerat the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Symposia and supplements to academic journalsare often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight andpeer review,with no supervision of content by the parent journal.Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal,being essentially paidads disguisedas academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number,or "Suppl." in a reference.However, note that merely being published inasupplement is notprima facieevidence of being published in asponsoredsupplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as theAstronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series,Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements,Supplement to the London Gazette,orThe Times Higher Education Supplement.A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Main page:Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create apersonal web pageorpublish their own bookand 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,tweets,and posts onInternet forumsare 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.Neveruse self-published sources asindependent sourcesabout other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

User-generated content

Content from websites whose content is largelyuser-generatedis generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal andgroupblogs (excludingnewspaper and magazine blogs),content farms,Internet forums,social media sites,fansites,videoandimagehosting services, mostwikisand other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources areAncestry.com,Discogs,Facebook,Famous Birthdays,Fandom,Find a Grave,Goodreads,IMDb,Instagram,Know Your Meme,ODMP,Reddit,Snapchat,TikTok,Tumblr,TV Tropes,Twitter,WhoSampled,andWikipedia(self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below.

Althoughreview aggregators(such asRotten TomatoesandMetacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not.

In particular, awikilinkis not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

See also:Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of informationabout 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:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor anexceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such asTwitter,Tumblr,andFacebook.Use of self-sourced material should bede minimis;the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Spurious sources produced by machine learning

In recent years,machine learning(ML, AI) has become a common way to generate and publish material. It may not be known or detectable that ML was used. While ML generation in itself does not necessarily disqualify a source that is properly checked by the person using it, ML has a tendency to create or "hallucinate" imaginary information, "supported" by citations that look as if they are from respectable sources but do not exist. In one case, a lawyer usedChatGPTto generate and file a legal brief that he did not check; the judge upon reviewing the case stated, "six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations", although ChatGPT had assured the author that they were real and could "be found in reputable legal databases such asLexisNexisandWestlaw".Citations have been published to newspaper articles that do not exist, attributed to named reporters.Such spurious material may be generated unintentionally by writers—reporters, scientists, medical researchers, lawyers,...—usingchatbotsto help them to produce reports, or maliciously to generate "fake news".

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Main page:Wikipedia: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 onanypage inanynamespace,not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Main page:Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliablesecondary sources,i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputabletertiary sources,such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus,Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose(except as sources on themselves perWP:SELFSOURCE).

Primary sourcesare 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 avoidoriginal 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{{primary source-inline}}and{{better source}},or article templates, such as{{primary sources}}and{{refimprove science}},may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

Main page:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources forbiomedicalinformation includegeneralorsystematic reviewsin reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputablemedical journals,widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, ormedical guidelinesand position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It isvitalthat the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Fringe theories

See also:Wikipedia: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.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, theMoon landing conspiracy theoriesarticle may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. Byparity of sources,critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability andbiographies of living personspolicies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Quotations

Further information:Wikipedia: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 tomake 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.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (seeWikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based onnovel syntheses of disparate material.Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.Review articles,especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this isopinion piecesin mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion(see also§ Editorial and opinion commentary,above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of factoropinion:Never useself-publishedbooks,zines,websites, webforums,blogsandtweetsas 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; seeWikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sourcesandWikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered atWikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

Further information:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

See also:Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, butWikipedia is not a newspaperand 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. TheOn the MediaBreaking News Consumer's Handbookcontains 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 towardsrecentism 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: seeWikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources,Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.

The{{current}},{{recent death}},or anothercurrent-event-related templatemay 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 alsoWikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: seeWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sourcesandWikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship.On the Mediacautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliablepress 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 ofdisease 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 "awaiting FDA approval"orin pre-clinical testing"as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and,even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.

Headlines

Newsheadlines—includingsubheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

Main page:Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

See also:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sourcesandWikipedia: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 arequest for comment,usually at thereliable sources noticeboard.It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfoundedconspiracy 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 fordiscussion 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 givingundue weightto afringe 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 bytroll farms.Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; seeWikipedia:Blacklistfor other details about blacklisting.

See also

Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sourceslists many templates, including

• {{notability}}
• {{citation needed}}
• {{unreliable source?}}

Policies and guidelines

• Citing sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Fringe theories
• No original research
• Non-English sources

Information pages

• Common knowledge
• External links/Perennial websites
• How to mine a source
• Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Offline sources
• Reliable sources/Cost
• Video links

Locating reliable sources

See also:Help:Find sourcesandWikipedia:Advanced source searching

• Free English newspaper sources
• Reliable sources/Perennial sources,a list of frequently discussed sources
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• List of online newspaper archives
• The Wikipedia Library,a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Essays

Main page:Wikipedia:Essay directory § Verifiability and sources

• Articles on sources
• Applying reliability guidelines
• Cherrypicking
• Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't "teach the controversy"(phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy
• Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Identifying reliable sources (science)
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)
• Reliable source examples
• Reliable sources checklist(provides a ref-vetting method)
• Potentially unreliable sources
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• Tiers of reliability
• Vanity and predatory publishing
• Wikipedia clones
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Ye shall know them by their sources

Other

• Change detection and notification
• Current science and technology sources
• News sources
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard– obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Reliable sources quiz
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches–Signpostarticle
• WikiProject Reliability

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source,Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students,Patrick Rael, 2004. (Alsopdf version)
• How to Read a Secondary Source,Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students,Patrick Rael, 2004. (Alsopdf version)
• Citogenesis (Where citations come from),xkcd comic byRandall Munroe
• "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet",Geek.com.How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What,Benjamin Wittes,Lawfare