Contents 1 Problems 1.1 General reliability 1.2 Specific questionability 1.3 Widely-known vs. specialized facts 1.4 Related problems 2 Types of sources 2.1 Children's sources 2.2 Adult new reader sources 2.3 Large-print sources 2.3.1 Exceptions 3 Solutions 3.1 When both questionable and unquestionable sources are available 3.2 How to check reliability 3.3 Citing 3.4 If content supported by a questionable source 3.4.1 Biographies of living persons 3.4.2 Harmful content in any article 3.4.3 All other articles 4 See also 4.1 Essays 5 References and notes

Problems[edit] General reliability[edit] Some sources are not reliable and cannot support statements in Wikipedia. An editor wanting to add a statement to Wikipedia is required to be sure a reliable source can be found for it. Statements that are obviously true need sources even though it is not necessary to cite them unless challenged (this does not apply to quotations). All other statements and all quotations are likely to be challenged and need sources cited. All of these sources must be reliable. Questionable types of sources lack the assurance of having been checked for accuracy and a reasonable degree of contextualization (providing enough context so that the main content can be correctly understood). Questionable sources are presumed unreliable, and are more likely to be deleted along with the statements they support, so an editor wanting to cite a questionable source must be more careful in checking that it is reliable. It may help to provide information on a source's reliability to reassure other Wikipedia readers, such as in a footnote or on the talk page. Specific questionability[edit] Children's sources, adult new reader sources, and abridged large-print media are questionable on reliability. Children's and adult new reader sources tend to oversimplify their substantive content and abridged large-print media also may do so. Merely simplifying is not objectionable; we don't demand that a source be too complicated for most educated adults to understand. But simplified and oversimplified are two different qualities. An oversimplified source is more likely to be either wrong or so far from precision as to be useless for Wikipedia. For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second;[1] a source that rounds this number to 300,000 kilometers per second would be good enough (at least until a more precise source is found), but a source that only says that light is faster than a rabbit, even though that's true, is not good enough. And, if the source is simply wrong, that's obviously useless for adding into Wikipedia.[2] Listed authors may not be real authors. That was found with some high school history textbooks a few decades ago. A textbook with three named authors, often including a prominent historian and a high school principal, frequently would actually have been authored not mainly by the named authors but by three other people with degrees but not in history and who had been directed by yet someone else in what to write.[3] Consultants are listed for some children's (and perhaps adult new reader) sources, but the role of the consultants is often not specified. Presumably, their being identified is to promote book sales. But what's important to reliability is what consultants did for a manuscript. If a consultant only gave general advice before the manuscript was written, the consultancy may be irrelevant to reliability for Wikipedia. On the other hand, if they proofread the manuscript for accuracy, that would be very relevant. But the sources often don't say what the consultants did. Before publication, a publisher's capable editorial staff likely evaluated almost any source before audiences (readers, listeners, et al.) got it. But that does not mean that the evaluation was specifically for reliability as needed for Wikipedia. (Likewise, self-published books from vanity presses may have been reviewed by careful staffs, but those reviews would likely have been limited to issues of liability for the publishers, such as libel, and not reliability for Wikipedia.) An audience that is less demanding is not usually going to inspire publishers to be as expensively demanding as they would be for better sources that are published. Children, especially younger ones, adults who can hardly read and have to concentrate on process more than on substance, and people with few other choices in what to read tend to be less demanding for textual accuracy. Exceptions exist. For example, books on relativity in physics for high school students may be questionable but the one written in the 1950s by Albert Einstein[4] was reliable in its time[5] because the author, as a leading scholar in the field, was qualified to ensure its accuracy. What Wikipedia's reliability guideline requires is that, when an editor wants to cite a source, the editor affirm the source's reliability, such as by affirming that the author was qualified to ensure the source's accuracy. Widely-known vs. specialized facts[edit] While children's, adult new reader, and abridged large-print sources may be reliable for widely-known facts even if not reliable for specialized knowledge, precisely because the widely-known facts are widely known, many sources support them. That fish swim in water, that Mozart was a musician, and that people fly into outer space can all be sourced to adult-level[6] fluent-reader unabridged sourcing, such as almanacs, encyclopedias, newspapers, and magazines, not to mention leading-edge peer-reviewed scholarship. In general, what we know as obviously true we know from adult-level sources, either initially or through subsequent confirmation, and probably so do the authors of children's sources. As a result, editors of Wikipedia probably should not rely on, or cite, children's sources. Related problems[edit] Most children's and adult new reader sources are tertiary and probably most abridged large-print sources are tertiary while Wikipedia prefers secondary sourcing. However, that is a separate issue and not an issue of reliability. Encouraging everyone to become editors includes encouraging editors who are just old enough to begin editing (like schoolchildren), barely literate, or physically hindered in reading. That encouragement is part of recruiting many editors of many backgrounds and is vital to growing Wikipedia and to strengthening the breadth of its coverage. We can anticipate that Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia as a result. Encouraging them as editors is easier if we encourage them to use the sources handy to them. A good example of that is the welcoming of children who want to edit on the subjects they probably like best and which they know better than the rest of us do. We can invite them to use the sources they have already learned to trust. Then, we can remedy source shortcomings by upgrading sources after the children have cited the sources they have handy. The source reliability guideline does not vary in its applicability according to who is editing Wikipedia. It does vary according to subject; for example, all else equal, a children's source may be acceptable for common rules in the game of checkers[7] but not on off-label bovine neurological medication regimens.[8]

Types of sources[edit] Children's sources[edit] Sources directed at children are created for audiences who are usually less demanding of intellectual quality or who usually don't know how to validate it. People who create for children (authors, radio hosts, et al.) usually would know this. Possibly, creators for children even get much of their factual content from Wikipedia.[9] Using these sources in Wikipedia will often lower the quality of Wikipedia articles and will result in indirectly citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia's policy for verifiability and the guideline against self-reference. The younger the intended audience, probably the greater the risk of unreliability. However, even textbooks for high school students are often unreliable, including in science[10] and history.[3] Subjects of little interest to adults but of great interest to children, such as children's games and hobbies, if adult-level sources are inadequate or nonexistent, are an exception for which children's sources may be relatively good. Even for those subjects, however, Wikipedia editors should be sure that a source did not get its information from Wikipedia. If the information is already in Wikipedia, even without a source, do not cite the children's source as a replacement or additional source. If the information is not in Wikipedia, citing the children's source may be acceptable. And even children's sources on children's subjects need to be reliable to be used in Wikipedia. Check the reliability of any children's source, especially a source meant for the youngest audiences but even up through high school levels (some editors may urge checking even up through undergraduate college levels) and especially if the source is to be cited for content of interest primarily to older or adult readers of Wikipedia. Adult new reader sources[edit] Adult new readers are adults who are learning to read in their native language for the first time, or who are learning to read in a foreign language for the first time. Adult new readers generally struggle to understand what they are trying to read (much as children struggle), and therefore need sources that are easier to read. While adult new readers may find long and complex content easy to parse when spoken, they generally have a harder time understanding it in written form and need the written form to be simple until they get moderately good at reading. When a new reader is trying to commit the sounds of vowels to memory from the ink strokes on a page, a slowly repetitive process, it is less distracting and thus more helpful to keep the message of the page substantively simple. That is most easily done by simplifying the content in both substance and style. Sources for adult new readers are generally created with this as background. Accuracy will generally be lower, maybe too low. Synonyms for adult new readers probably include new literates, beginner readers, emergent readers, English learners (and any analogues for other natural languages), English language learners (and any analogues for other natural languages), hi-lo readers (for high interest and low reading level), and reluctant readers.[11] Related terms include adult literacy and English as a second language (ESL) (and any analogues for other natural languages).[11] Check the reliability of any adult new reader source. Large-print sources[edit] Visually-impaired readers often depend on sources that are typeset or rendered in a large font size (such books are commonly called large-print books).[12] Because large-print unabridged nonelectronic media are physically larger and sales quantities are usually smaller, it is generally more expensive to print, inventory, and distribute a given text in a large font than one in a regular font size. Abridgement is normally not cost-free, as someone must do any abridging. Check the reliability of any large-print source, especially if it is nonelectronic, does not explicitly state that it is unabridged, and has a regular print counterpart from the same publisher and year. Exceptions[edit] Sources without regular print counterparts. Large font sizes are not in themselves a problem for reliability. The problem is where large and regular print sources have different content but are not labeled for the difference, because that may lead to a Wikipedia article's being wrong or an editor being unable to verify a source. Electronic sources, including in e-readers and on the Internet. Enlarging the text requires no additional content file (e.g., the same e-book can be rendered in any available font size for the same cost) and probably requires almost no additional computational power. Therefore, the reliability of the electronic source in a regular font size applies to the same source in any other font size. Unabridged sources. Many sources will explicitly state that the text is the full text of the regular-font edition (see if, for example, the cover or the copyright page says so). If a source does not say so, assume it is abridged. Abridgement requires editing, which should have been sensitive to intellectual accuracy, but it's usually impossible to tell if that is the case without comparing the two editions word for word, in which case a Wikipedia editor can simply read and cite the regular-font edition anyway, regardless of what the large-print edition may contain. While single-page sources cost only a little more to print, stock, and distribute in two font sizes, they have the same editing problem as multi-page sources and a Wikipedia editor comparing a single-page source for sameness of content between large and regular print editions can read and cite the regular-font edition anyway, and should. Pictures and other nontextual content in large-print editions that have the full text of regular print editions may be abridged without the edition saying so. Pictures may not be used in Wikipedia without permission (including fair use) or unless they're in the public domain, so their unavailability in a large-print edition is probably not critical, and the same may be true of any other nontext content in the source. (What constitutes nontext content is up to each publisher, source author, or source editor, but it might include tables and musical scores.) However, it is possible that quoting or paraphrasing even text by itself could amount to cherrypicking, so a regular font edition may be preferred for completeness. That will have to be judged separately for each source. Not all abridged works are encompassed as unreliable, regardless of font size. A collection of a politician's speeches in a regular font size may be complete or abridged. Two different abridgements of the same subject (such as of a historical person's important papers) may be quite reliable because the publishers' editing of both may have been of a sufficient level of quality, but abridgement only because of type size may have been done with less editorial skill,[13] making reliability questionable. The problem with large-print nonelectronic media is that they are (in some cases) abridged without saying so, with the editions otherwise appearing to be nearly identical and perhaps published in the same year and by the same publisher, causing confusion. That is unlike when years, publishers, or named editors are different, because the latter is enough to allow verification of the intended edition.

Solutions[edit] When both questionable and unquestionable sources are available[edit] When both a children's, adult new reader, or abridged large-print source is available and an adult-level fluent-reader unabridged source is also available, which to use depends on these factors: If both questionably and unquestionably reliable sources are conveniently in front of you (as an editor), use the better sourcing by itself. Only use the lesser sourcing in the unusual case where it adds something and is not supernumerary. Credibility alone, if two sources are otherwise equally citable and one will be enough, justifies citing an adult-level fluent-reader unabridged source for adult-level content in preference to a children's, adult new reader, or abridged large-print source. If you need to search for sourcing and could get either type, two choices apply: To improve the quality of one Wikipedia article, consider shunning children's, adult new reader, and abridged large-print sources when adult-level fluent-reader unabridged sourcing can be used. To expand Wikipedia's coverage across many articles, consider using any reliable sourcing and going forward to other articles with any other reliable sourcing (or sometimes the same sourcing used again), thus developing more content. You've confirmed the initial sources' minimal reliability, so they can be upgraded later. How to check reliability[edit] Check the reliability of these sources just as you would check the reliability of any source you want to cite. Merely having pages and covers does not make a source reliable. But evidence of reliability may often be found in the source itself. For instance, the cover may tell you the author's qualifications. If not, checking may take more time. Investigation may require going outside of the source, such as by searching book reviews and authors' and publishers' websites. Generally, if the author is qualified in the substantive field with the information you wish to add to Wikipedia, that may be sufficient. However, if an author's qualifications are unstated or if an author is qualified as a writer or in making children happy, that is usually not sufficient. For example, an author who is qualified as a writer may not be qualified to explain biology or astronomy, even though the author is very good at writing. Within Wikipedia, some sources can be investigated or challenged at the reliable sources noticeboard, including investigating in its archives for past cases. Citing[edit] Large-print nonelectronic media, if possibly abridged and if cited at all, should be cited as large-print sourcing, because of the possibility of unrevealed abridgment making verification harder unless a verifier knows to seek the large-print edition. This is a hypothetical example: <ref>Smith, Chris, Floating the Titanic (Warsaw: North Press, large-print 1st edition 2011).</ref> If content supported by a questionable source[edit] Some articles may already have citations to sources that are questionable.[14] Biographies of living persons[edit] If a statement is contentious and is supported only by a citation of a questionably reliable source, reconsider the source and justify the source as not questionable, upgrade the source, or delete the statement. Be bold and fast. Harmful content in any article[edit] With harmful content,[15] process as above (as with a contentious statement in a biography of a living person). All other articles[edit] If any statement is supported by a citation of a questionably reliable source, you may resolve it yourself or invite other editors to resolve it. If you'll do the editing yourself, reconsider the source and justify the source as not questionable, upgrade the source, or delete the statement. If you don't do the editing yourself, you may tag the statement so that other editors will know to do something about it. Either the {{Better source}} template or the {{Verify credibility}} template can serve that purpose. The {{Better source}} template allows an editor to add a reason. Choose and format one of the templates and place it in the article's content right after the citation of the questionable source.

See also[edit] Essays[edit] Cherrypicking – although using an unreliable source is not the cherrypicking that Wikipedia editors should not do, it risks cherrypicking by other people Baby and bathwater – using a source that has any reliability at all Minors and persons judged incompetent – writing about certain people Avoiding untrue text in articles – accuracy of content

References and notes[edit] ^ Evenson, Kenneth M., Speed of Light, in Light, in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 11th ed. 2012 (ISBN 978-0-07-179273-8 or 0-07-179273-2)), vol. 10, p. 17 (author Evenson of Time and Frequency Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado) ("vacuum" not specified for the exact speed, only for an approximate speed of 300,000 kilometers per second). ^ In a few cases, wrong or extremely imprecise sources may be used in Wikipedia, such as to support notable fringe theories or that document impressions from popular culture reflecting academic subjects, but such usage would be rare.     We do not delete content from Wikipedia simply because it is obviously wrong if it otherwise qualifies for inclusion, but neither need we add it even if otherwise qualified under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deleting it would be against Wikipedia's effort to report what reliable sources say, which we do even if the reliable source was wrong in an instance; and it would cause no end of disputes between editors applying their personal knowledge, which, when unsourced, would be deleting on the basis of original research. When an article's content is wrong, it is appropriate to search for a contrary source that meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and add information from that source, subject to the policy for due weight.     The creator of this essay recalled learning in school, probably in teenage years, that chemical elements were composed of atoms that in turn were composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons and that what defined an element was the equal quantities of each of the three particles. The latter turned out to be wrong, as was later found out from a college-level book. Two of the particles were only for defining ions and isotopes of given elements. Only one of the particles was relevant to defining an element. Since then, the list of subatomic particles and their roles has changed, but what matters here is not that scientific knowledge has changed since it was taught to this essay's creator (it probably did relevantly change), but that the first taught explanation was wrong even in light of the science as then known regarding two of the particles and that the likely reason for being wrong was that the explanation taught to teenagers in school was simpler than the true one. ^ a b FitzGerald, Frances, Rewriting American History, in The New Yorker, vol. LV, nos. 2–4, February 26, 1979–March 12, 1979 (in microfilm) (on history textbooks for U.S. kindergarten through high school) (see also FitzGerald, Frances, America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century (Little, Brown, 1979) (book not seen by the Wikipedia editor citing it)). ^ The editor creating this essay recalls reading such a book but has forgotten the title, has not identified the book in several websites searched, and recalls that it was published in two or more editions over a few years. ^ Today, Wikipedia would likely prefer a much more recent source, because physics itself would have advanced, and Wikipedia didn't exist in the 1950s. ^ Adult-level refers to subjects which children would tend to find boring, and is not limited to subjects adults tend to keep away from children because adults tend to believe that the children would misunderstand with adverse consequences. ^ Common rules in many games and sports often differ from official rules. The basics may be the same but some nonbasics may not be. At least one former minor-league baseball umpire wrote of some official rules as nearly incomprehensible even to an umpire who's supposed to apply them (Postema, Pam, You've Got to Have Balls to Make It in This League (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992)). ^ Children would likely not understand at least 3 of those 5 words. ^ The creator of this essay has no proof of this. ^ Feynman, Richard P., "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (Feynman, a physicist, reviewed books for school use (relevant text)). ^ a b "Adult Literacy Background Information (guidelines)". Archived from the original on 24 August 2012. Retrieved August 24, 2013.  ^ It is hoped that people with visual impairments will have the same access to literature that unimpaired readers already have. But it is a reality that not all nonelectronic media are available in large-print or electronically and that not all large-print nonelectronic media are unabridged. Even if this is economically necessary, and it may not be, the unavailability is effectually discriminatory against some people with disabilities. ^ The creator of this essay at the time has no proof of this speculation, which is based on a probability that readers who need large print have fewer alternatives and thus would tend to be less demanding of publishers. ^ A quick and cursory review by the creator of this essay found several Wikipedia articles on adult-level subjects with citations to books by authors of children's books or publishers specialized in children's books, although it is possible that the specific works thus cited had been checked and found to be reliable. ^ The creator of this essay recalls something somewhere in Wikipedia about harmful content, and more or less defining it, but now can't find it, so is leaving it undefined. If someone knows an appropriate link, please add it. v t e Essays about Wikipedia Essays on building, editing, and deleting content Philosophy Articles must be written Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Cohesion Concede lost arguments Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Don't lie Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Product, process, policy Purpose There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Construction 100K featured articles Acronym Overkill Advanced source searching Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced table formatting Advanced template coding Advanced text formatting Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Bare URLs Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant Cherrypicking Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Law sources Link rot Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Nothing is in stone Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles There is a deadline There is no deadline The deadline is now Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles Deletion Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete the junk Does deletion help? Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Immunity Liar Liar Pants on Fire Nothing Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use Essays on civility The basics How to be civil Compromise Accepting other users Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks Thank you Apologizing Truce Divisiveness Encouraging newcomers Relationships with academic editors High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors Obsessive Compulsive Disorder editors Philosophy A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right Of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Wikipedia is not about winning Writing for the opponent Dos Argue better Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Deny recognition Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Just drop it Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Don'ts Don't give a fuck Don't be inconsiderate Don't be rude Don't call a spade a spade Don't call the kettle black Don't take the bait Do not insult the vandals Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't be ashamed Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't spite your face Don't call things cruft No angry mastodons No, you can't have a pony Don't be an ostrich Don't template the regulars Don't be a fanatic Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't fight fire with fire Don't be prejudiced Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't throw your toys out of the pram Don't help too much Passive aggression Don't cry COI Don't be obnoxious Don't be a WikiBigot Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't eat the troll's food You can't squeeze blood from a turnip Wiki relations WikiLove WikiHate WikiCrime WikiBullying WikiPeace WikiLawyering WikiHarassment POV Railroading Essays on notability Notability Alternative outlets Articles with a single source Bare notability Bombardment Businesses with a single location But it's true! Citation overkill Clones Coatrack articles Common sourcing mistakes Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Every snowflake is unique Existence ≠ Notability Fart Google searches and numbers High Schools Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Inherent notability Insignificant Masking the lack of notability Make stubs News coverage does not decrease notability No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability No big loss No one cares about your garage band No one really cares Notability/Historical/Arguments Notability cannot be purchased Notability is not a level playing field Notability is not a matter of opinion Notability is not relevance or reliability Notability means impact Notability points Notability sub-pages Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability Offline sources One hundred words One sentence does not an article make Other stuff exists Pokémon test Read the source Run-of-the-mill Significant coverage not required Solutions are mixtures and nothing else Subjective importance What notability is not What is and is not routine coverage What to include Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause General notability guideline Independent sources Significant coverage Trivial mentions Humorous essays Humorous material Assume bad faith Assume faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Avoid using preview button Avoid using wikilinks BOLD, revert, revert, revert Boston Tea Party Barnstaritis Don't-give-a-fuckism Edits Per Day Editsummarisis Go ahead, vandalize How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you Please bite the newbies R-e-s-p-e-c-t Shadowless Fists of Death! The Night After Wikimas The first rule of Wikipedia The Five Pillars of Untruth Things that should not be surprising The WikiBible Watchlistitis Why not create an Account? Inactive historical references Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails About essays About essays Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay Policies and guidelines About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard Retrieved from ",_adult_new_reader,_and_large-print_sources_questionable_on_reliability&oldid=799786185" Categories: Wikipedia guidance essaysWikipedia essays identifying problems and/or solutionsWikipedia essays on reliable sources

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage information Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages Add links This page was last edited on 9 September 2017, at 20:54. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.252","walltime":"0.341","ppvisitednodes":{"value":1554,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":214073,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":28206,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":16,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":3,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 257.067 1 -total"," 37.83% 97.259 1 Template:Reflist"," 28.27% 72.675 2 Template:Ombox"," 25.77% 66.256 1 Template:Wikipedia_essays"," 24.26% 62.354 1 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups"," 19.08% 49.044 1 Template:Cite_web"," 10.49% 26.965 1 Template:ISBN"," 9.30% 23.897 1 Template:Guidance_essay"," 6.90% 17.739 5 Template:Navbox"," 5.78% 14.871 1 Template:Ombox/shortcut"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.089","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3069949,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1266","timestamp":"20180217161309","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":85,"wgHostname":"mw1319"});});

Wikipedia:Children's,_adult_new_reader,_and_large-print_sources_questionable_on_reliability - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Children's,_adult_new_reader,_and_large-print_sources_questionable_on_reliability More Links

Wikipedia Talk:Identifying Reliable Sources/Archive 40Wikipedia Talk:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:EssaysWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Local ConsensusWikipedia:ShortcutEnlargeWikipedia Talk:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:You Don't Need To Cite That The Sky Is BlueWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesAlbert EinsteinWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Manual Of Style/Self-references To AvoidEnglish-language LearnerLiteracyEnglish As A Second Or Foreign LanguagePoint (typography)Large-printWikipedia:VerifiabilityE-book ReaderWikipedia:Image Use PolicySheet MusicWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardTemplate:Better SourceTemplate:Verify CredibilityWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Baby And BathwaterWikipedia:Minors And Persons Judged IncompetentWikipedia:Avoiding Untrue Text In ArticlesMcGraw-Hill Encyclopedia Of Science & TechnologyInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-0-07-179273-8National Institute Of Standards And TechnologyWikipedia:Fringe TheoriesWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewTemplate:Wikipedia EssaysTemplate Talk:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Articles Must Be WrittenWikipedia:Vague IntroductionsWikipedia:Be A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Coherence And CohesionWikipedia:ConcessionWikipedia:Eight Simple Rules For Editing Our EncyclopediaWikipedia:Don't LieWikipedia:ExplanationismWikipedia:External Criticism Of WikipediaWikipedia:Here To Build An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:Wikipedia Does Or Does Not Need That ArticleWikipedia:Neutrality Of SourcesWikipedia:Not Editing Because Of Wikipedia RestrictionWikipedia:OversimplificationWikipedia:ParadoxesWikipedia:Close ParaphrasingWikipedia:POV And OR From Editors, Sources, And FieldsWikipedia:Product, Process, PolicyWikipedia:PurposeWikipedia:But I'm An Administrator!Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules For Editing WikipediaWikipedia:Tendentious EditingWikipedia:The Role Of Policies In Collaborative AnarchyWikipedia:The Rules Are PrinciplesWikipedia:TrifectaWikipedia:Wikipedia In BriefWikipedia:Wikipedia Is An EncyclopediaWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A CommunityWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/Article WritingWikipedia:100,000 Feature-quality ArticlesWikipedia:Acronym OverkillWikipedia:Advanced Source SearchingWikipedia:Adding Images Improves The EncyclopediaWikipedia:Advanced Article EditingWikipedia:Advanced Table FormattingWikipedia:Advanced Template CodingHelp:Advanced Text FormattingWikipedia:Alternatives To The "Expand" TemplateWikipedia:Amnesia TestWikipedia:A Navbox On Every PageWikipedia:An Unfinished House Is A Real ProblemWikipedia:Article Half-lifeWikipedia:Autosizing ImagesWikipedia:Avoid Mission StatementsWikipedia:Bare URLsWikipedia:Be Neutral In FormWikipedia:Beef Up That First RevisionWikipedia:Blind Men And An ElephantWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Citation UnderkillWikipedia:Concept CloudWikipedia:Creating Controversial ContentWikipedia:Criticisms Of Society May Be Consistent With NPOV And ReliabilityWikipedia:Dictionaries As SourcesWikipedia:Don't Demolish The House While It's Still Being BuiltWikipedia:Don't Hope The House Will Build ItselfWikipedia:Don't PanicWikipedia:Editing On Mobile DevicesWikipedia:Editors Are Not MindreadersWikipedia:EndorsementsWikipedia:Featured Articles May Have ProblemsWikipedia:Fruit Of The Poisonous TreeWikipedia:Give An Article A ChanceWikipedia:Ignore STRONGNAT For Date FormatsWikipedia:InaccuracyWikipedia:Introduction To StructurismWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (law)Wikipedia:Link RotWikipedia:How To Mine A SourceWikipedia:Merge TestWikipedia:Minors And Persons Judged IncompetentWikipedia:"Murder Of" ArticlesWikipedia:Not Every Story/event/disaster Needs A BiographyWikipedia:Not Everything Needs A NavboxWikipedia:Nothing Is In StoneWikipedia:Organizing Disambiguation Pages By Subject AreaWikipedia:PermastubWikipedia:Potential, Not Just Current StateWikipedia:PrintabilityWikipedia:Pruning Article RevisionsWikipedia:For Publicists Publicizing A Client's WorkWikipedia:Put A Little Effort Into ItWikipedia:Restoring Part Of A Reverted EditWikipedia:Robotic EditingWikipedia:Sham ConsensusWikipedia:How To Run An Edit-a-thonWikipedia:Temporary Versions Of ArticlesWikipedia:There Is A DeadlineWikipedia:There Is No DeadlineWikipedia:The Deadline Is NowWikipedia:Walled GardenWikipedia:What An Article Should Not IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is A Work In ProgressWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A Reliable SourceWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Being Written In An Organized FashionWikipedia:The World Will Not End TomorrowWikipedia:Write The Article FirstWikipedia:Writing Better ArticlesWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/DeletionWikipedia:Adjectives In Your RecommendationsWikipedia:Articles For Deletion Is Not A War ZoneWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion ReviewsWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Image Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Make In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Avoid Repeated ArgumentsWikipedia:Before Commenting In A Deletion DiscussionWikipedia:But There Must Be Sources!Wikipedia:Confusing Arguments Mean NothingWikipedia:Content RemovalWikipedia:Counting And Sorting Are Not Original ResearchWikipedia:Delete The JunkWikipedia:Does Deletion Help?Wikipedia:Don't Overuse Shortcuts To Policy And Guidelines To Win Your ArgumentWikipedia:Follow The LeaderWikipedia:How To Save An Article Proposed For DeletionWikipedia:I Just Don't Like ItWikipedia:ImmunityWikipedia:Liar Liar Pants On FireWikipedia:NothingWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:Relisting Can Be AbusiveWikipedia:Relist BiasWikipedia:The Heymann StandardWikipedia:Unopposed AFD DiscussionWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Whac-A-MoleWikipedia:Why Was The Page I Created Deleted?Wikipedia:What To Do If Your Article Gets Tagged For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:When In Doubt, Hide It In The WoodworkWikipedia:No Encyclopedic UseWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/CivilityWikipedia:How To Be CivilWikipedia:NegotiationWikipedia:Accepting Other UsersWikipedia:Enjoy YourselfWikipedia:Expect No ThanksWikipedia:Thank YouWikipedia:ApologyWikipedia:TruceWikipedia:DivisivenessWikipedia:Encourage The NewcomersWikipedia:Relationships With Academic EditorsWikipedia:High-functioning Autism And Asperger's EditorsWikipedia:Obsessive Compulsive Disorder EditorsWikipedia:A Weak Personal Attack Is Still WrongWikipedia:Advice For HotheadsWikipedia:An Uncivil Environment Is A Poor EnvironmentWikipedia:Be The GlueWikipedia:Civility WarningsWikipedia:Overzealous DeletionWikipedia:FailureWikipedia:Forgive And ForgetWikipedia:It's Not The End Of The WorldWikipedia:Nobody CaresWikipedia:Most People Who Disagree With You On Content Are Not VandalsWikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian ValuesWikipedia:Staying Cool When The Editing Gets HotWikipedia:The Grey ZoneWikipedia:The Last WordWikipedia:There Is No Divine Right Of EditorsWikipedia:Most Ideas Are BadWikipedia:CLEARLYWikipedia:The Rules Of Polite DiscourseWikipedia:What "Ignore All Rules" MeansWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not About WinningWikipedia:Writing For The OpponentWikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Assume The Assumption Of Good FaithWikipedia:Assume No ClueWikipedia:Avoid Personal RemarksWikipedia:Avoid The Word "vandal"Wikipedia:Beyond CivilityWikipedia:Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:CandorWikipedia:Drop The Stick And Back Slowly Away From The Horse CarcassWikipedia:Deny RecognitionWikipedia:Encourage Full DiscussionsWikipedia:Get Over ItWikipedia:How To LoseWikipedia:Just Drop ItWikipedia:Keep It Down To EarthWikipedia:Mind Your Own BusinessWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Don't Be InconsiderateWikipedia:Don't Be RudeWikipedia:Don't Call A Spade A SpadeWikipedia:Don't Call The Kettle BlackWikipedia:Don't Take The BaitWikipedia:Do Not Insult The VandalsWikipedia:Don't Come Down Like A Ton Of BricksWikipedia:Don't Be AshamedWikipedia:Don't Drink The Consensus Kool-AidWikipedia:Don't Spite Your FaceWikipedia:CruftcruftWikipedia:No Angry MastodonsWikipedia:No, You Can't Have A PonyWikipedia:Don't Be An OstrichWikipedia:Don't Template The RegularsWikipedia:Don't Be A FanaticWikipedia:Don't Accuse Someone Of A Personal Attack For Accusing Of A Personal AttackWikipedia:Don't Fight Fire With FireWikipedia:Don't Be PrejudicedWikipedia:Don't Remind Others Of Past MisdeedsWikipedia:Don't Throw Your Toys Out Of The PramWikipedia:Don't Help Too MuchWikipedia:Passive AggressionWikipedia:Don't Cry COIWikipedia:Don't Be ObnoxiousWikipedia:Don't Be A WikiBigotWikipedia:Do Not Confuse Stub Status With Non-notabilityWikipedia:Don't Eat The Troll's FoodWikipedia:You Can't Squeeze Blood From A TurnipWikipedia:WikiLoveWikipedia:WikiHateWikipedia:WikiCrimeWikipedia:WikiBullyingWikipedia:WikiPeaceWikipedia:WikilawyeringWikipedia:HarassmentWikipedia:POV RailroadWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Essays In A Nutshell/NotabilityWikipedia:Alternative OutletsWikipedia:Articles With A Single SourceWikipedia:Bare NotabilityWikipedia:BombardmentWikipedia:Businesses With A Single LocationWikipedia:But It's True!Wikipedia:Citation OverkillWikipedia:Wikipedia ClonesWikipedia:Coatrack ArticlesWikipedia:Common Sourcing MistakesWikipedia:Discriminate Vs Indiscriminate InformationWikipedia:Every Snowflake Is UniqueWikipedia:Existence ≠ NotabilityWikipedia:FartWikipedia:Google Searches And NumbersWikipedia:Notability (high Schools)Wikipedia:Inclusion Is Not An Indicator Of NotabilityWikipedia:Inherent NotabilityWikipedia:InsignificantWikipedia:Masking The Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:Make StubsWikipedia:News Coverage Does Not Decrease NotabilityWikipedia:No Amount Of Editing Can Overcome A Lack Of NotabilityWikipedia:No Big LossWikipedia:No One Cares About Your Garage BandWikipedia:No One Really CaresWikipedia:Notability/Historical/ArgumentsWikipedia:Notability Cannot Be PurchasedWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Level Playing FieldWikipedia:Notability Is Not A Matter Of OpinionWikipedia:Notability Is Not Relevance Or ReliabilityWikipedia:Notability Means ImpactWikipedia:Notability PointsWikipedia:Notability Sub-pagesWikipedia:Obscure Does Not Mean Not NotableWikipedia:Offline SourcesWikipedia:One Hundred WordsWikipedia:One Sentence Does Not An Article MakeWikipedia:Other Stuff ExistsWikipedia:Pokémon TestWikipedia:Read The SourceWikipedia:Run-of-the-millWikipedia:Significant Coverage Not RequiredWikipedia:On Wikipedia, Solutions Are Mixtures And Nothing ElseWikipedia:Subjective ImportanceWikipedia:What Notability Is NotWikipedia:What Is And Is Not Routine CoverageWikipedia:What To IncludeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Here To Tell The World About Your Noble CauseWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Identifying And Using Independent SourcesWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Trivial MentionsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Assume Bad FaithWikipedia:Assume FaithWikipedia:Assume Good WraithWikipedia:Assume StupidityWikipedia:Assume That Everyone's Assuming Good Faith, Assuming That You Are Assuming Good FaithWikipedia:Avoid Using Preview ButtonWikipedia:Avoid Using WikilinksWikipedia:BOLD, Revert, Revert, RevertWikipedia:Boston Tea PartyWikipedia:BarnstaritisWikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckismWikipedia:Edits Per DayWikipedia:EditsummarisisWikipedia:Go Ahead, VandalizeWikipedia:How Many Wikipedians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?Wikipedia:How To Put Up A Straight Pole By Pushing It At An AngleWikipedia:Newcomers Are Delicious, So Go Ahead And Bite ThemWikipedia:No Climbing The Reichstag Dressed As Spider-ManWikipedia:Please Be A Giant Dick, So We Can Ban YouWikipedia:Please Bite The NewbiesWikipedia:R-e-s-p-e-c-tWikipedia:Shadowless Fists Of Death!Wikipedia:The Night After WikimasWikipedia:The First Rule Of WikipediaWikipedia:The Five Pillars Of UntruthWikipedia:Things That Should Not Be SurprisingWikipedia:WikiBibleWikipedia:WatchlistitisWikipedia:Why Not Create An Account?Wikipedia:Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Unblock EmailsWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Wikipedia EssaysWikipedia:The Value Of EssaysWikipedia:The Difference Between Policies, Guidelines And EssaysWikipedia:Don't Cite Essays Or Proposals As If They Were PolicyWikipedia:Avoid Writing Redundant EssaysWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:Quote Your Own EssayWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:How To Contribute To Wikipedia GuidanceWikipedia:Policy Writing Is HardHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia Guidance EssaysCategory:Wikipedia Essays Identifying Problems And/or SolutionsCategory:Wikipedia Essays On Reliable SourcesDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link