Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite

Some sources are more reliable, and from more reputable publishers, than others. These more reliable sources from more reputable publishers are preferred. However, reliability is not a binary condition - rather, there are degrees of reliability.

Why cite sources?

Sources are used for one of two ways within Wikipedia.

To support an specific assertion made in an article. It is good form to directly cite the source for the point that is being supported, so that other editors and readers will be able to figure out which sources go with which assertations.

To support the assertations represented in the article as a whole. In this case, it may still be a good idea to cite the souce once every paragraph or section, to remind the reader where the information is from, but it is not as important. It may also be useful to do this in case more sources are used in the future.

Aspects of reliability

In assessing the suitability of a source for the purposes of research in general a number of aspects should be considered:

Editorial oversight - A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal sites, personally published print runs and blogs have lower levels of reliability than published news media (The Economist) which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (Nature).

Declaration of sources - A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.

Expertise of the origninator with respect to the subject - An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when wrting about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.

Bias of the originator with respect to the subject - If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject - Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information. Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. Should now newer sources be available it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.

The following may also be helpful, but are not as broadly agreed upon:

Replicability of the material

Corroboration

Persistence of the source, particularly when an online source is used.

Confidentiality

Attributability

Declared legal liability (sometimes by implication)

Degree of establishment

Established history (trackrecord)

These issues are particularly pertinent to Wikipedia where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources are comparable in their reliability with respect to a topic, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability with respect to the subject in different contexts.

Editorial oversight

Most sources can be classified as one of the following, in descending order of reliability:

Peer-reviewed works: Articles in academic journals have been reviewed by experts in the field.
Sources with editorial oversight: Sources such as books, magazine or newspaper articles, and so on, have typically been reviewed by at least one editor.
Self-published sources: Sources that have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, such as personal websites, blogs, Usenet postings, books published by vanity publishers, and so on.

Typically, peer-reviewed works are more reliable than works with editorial oversight, which are more reliable than self-published sources, although there are exceptions. Within each of these categories, works can be of different levels of reliability (more reliable publisher for a source with editorial oversight, an expert writing a self-published source, etc.).

Self-published sources are only as reliable as the person who wrote them and so should generally be avoided, unless the person writing them is known to be an expert in the topic, or as primary sources.

In general, you should use the most reliable sources available for a topic. For some topics these may be peer-reviewed works, for others sources with editorial oversight, and for others self-published sources. Furthermore, within each of these three categories, there may be different levels of reliability. Common sense is required to determine what sources should be considered as reliable for a given topic. This guideline cannot be applied robotically. If all the sources for a given subject are of low reliability, this may be an indication that the subject is not yet formally verifiable and ready for inclusion.

References

External links

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

Why cite sources?

Aspects of reliability

Editorial oversight

See also

References

External links