Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Definition of a source 1.2 Definition of published 1.3 Context matters 1.4 Age matters 2 Some types of sources 2.1 Scholarship 2.2 News organizations 2.3 Vendor and e-commerce sources 2.4 Biased or opinionated sources 3 Questionable and self-published sources 3.1 Questionable sources 3.2 Self-published sources (online and paper) 3.2.1 User-generated content 3.2.2 Exceptions 3.3 Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves 4 Reliability in specific contexts 4.1 Biographies of living persons 4.2 Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources 4.3 Medical claims 4.4 Quotations 4.5 Academic consensus 4.6 Usage by other sources 4.7 Statements of opinion 4.8 Breaking news 4.9 Specific uses 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

Overview Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. Further information: WP:BESTSOURCES Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge 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 of published "Wikipedia:PUBLISHED" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published. Shortcut Wikipedia:PUBLISHED The term "published" 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 sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party 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 Shortcuts WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:RSCONTEXT 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. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source 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. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. Age matters Shortcuts WP:AGE MATTERS WP:RS AGE 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 the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery). With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt. Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Some types of sources Shortcut WP:SOURCETYPES Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, and Wikipedia: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, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. Scholarship Shortcut WP:SCHOLARSHIP Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is 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. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 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. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), 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 third 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. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. 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. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. 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.[notes 1] In recent years there has been an explosion in new journals of very low quality that have only token peer-review if any (see predatory journals). They simply 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 (see hijacked journals).[1][2][3][4][5] The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. News organizations Shortcut WP:NEWSORG News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6] 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.[notes 2] 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.[7][8] Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.[notes 3] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies. One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Vendor and e-commerce sources Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits 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 to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems: It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking; When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable third-party 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, and Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources Shortcut WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Questionable sources Shortcuts WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires.[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might 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.[11][12] Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts WP:RSSELF WP:RS/SPS Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. User-generated content Shortcuts WP:UGC WP:USERG WP:IMDBREF WP:USERGENERATED Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb),, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. Exceptions Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs). Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources). See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

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 on any page in any namespace, not just article space. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Shortcuts WP:RSPRIMARY WP:WPNOTRS Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary 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 per WP:SELFSOURCE). Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. When editing articles and 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 Shortcut WP:RS/MC Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Quotations Further information: MOS:QUOTE The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research). Academic consensus Shortcut WP:RS/AC 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 on novel 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. Usage by other sources Shortcut WP:USEBYOTHERS How accepted, 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 represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. Statements of opinion Shortcut WP:RSOPINION 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 is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Note that 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 a more "traditional" 20th-century format. There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. Breaking news Shortcut WP:RSBREAKING 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, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources, distrusting unconfirmed reports and those attributed to other news media, seeking multiple sources, seeking eyewitness reports, being wary of potential hoaxes, and being skeptical of reports of possible additional attackers in mass shootings. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. When editing articles covering current events, also keep in mind the essay on recentism bias. {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or other current event-related templates may be added to the top of articles concerning breaking news, to alert readers that some information may be inaccurate, and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. Keep in mind, however, that these current event-related templates are not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles). Specific uses Expertise and objectivity of the source with respect to the item which cited it is another measure of context-based reliability

See also Templates Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including {{notability}} – adds: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Identifying reliable sources" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message) {{fact}} or {{cn}} – adds: [citation needed] {{vc}} or {{rs}} – adds: [unreliable source?] Policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Wikipedia:Fringe theories Wikipedia:No original research Essays Wikipedia:Articles on sources Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines Wikipedia:Cherrypicking Wikipedia:Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones Wikipedia:Common knowledge Wikipedia:How to mine a source Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context Wikipedia:Independent sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content Wikipedia:Offline sources Wikipedia:Reliable source examples Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources Wikipedia:Video links Locating reliable sources Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request List of academic databases and search engines List of digital library projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources Tools Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method Other Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources Wikipedia:News sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard—obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches—Signpost article Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check Change detection and notification Source criticism Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Notes ^ Examples include The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science (the latter uses blog comments as peer review). ^ Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy. ^ A variety of these incidents have been documented by Private Eye and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as vandalism or otherwise have appeared in newspapers

References ^ Beall, Jeffrey (December 1, 2012). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" (2nd ed.). Scholarly Open Access.  ^ Kolata, Gina (April 7, 2013). "Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)". The New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2013.  ^ Butler, Declan (March 28, 2013). "Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees". Nature. 495. pp. 421–422. Retrieved April 11, 2013.  ^ Bohannon, John (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.  ^ Kolata, Gina (30 October 2017). "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". Retrieved 2 November 2017 – via  ^ Miller, Laura (October 16, 2011). "'Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy". Salon. Salon Media Group. Retrieved October 17, 2011. [Debbie Nathan] also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.'  ^ "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Princeton. 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.  ^ "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.  ^ Malone Kircher, Madison (November 15, 2016). "Fake Facebook news sites to avoid". New York Magazine. Retrieved November 15, 2016.  ^ An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (25 February 2015). "'Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers" (PDF). The Charleston Advisor.  ^ Beall, Jeffrey. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Retrieved 23 July 2013. 

External links How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version) How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version) Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to, the IMDb, and Wikipedia. How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare v t e Wikipedia key policies and guidelines Five pillars What Wikipedia is not Ignore all rules Content Verifiability No original research Neutral point of view What Wikipedia is not Biographies of living persons Image use Wikipedia is not a dictionary Article titles Notability Autobiography Citing sources Identifying reliable sources medicine Do not include copies of primary sources Plagiarism Don't create hoaxes Fringe theories Patent nonsense External links Conduct Civility Consensus Editing policy Harassment Vandalism Ignore all rules No personal attacks Ownership of content Edit warring Dispute resolution Sock puppetry No legal threats Child protection Paid-contribution disclosure Assume good faith Conflict of interest Disruptive editing Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Etiquette Gaming the system Please do not bite the newcomers Courtesy vanishing Responding to threats of harm Deletion Deletion policy Proposed deletion Criteria for speedy deletion Attack page Oversight Proposed deletion of BLP Proposed deletion (books) Revision deletion Enforcement Administrators Banning Blocking Page protection Editing Article size Be bold Disambiguation Hatnotes Set index articles Subpages User pages Talk page guidelines Signatures Broad-concept article Project namespace WikiProjects Style Manual of Style Contents Accessibility Understandability Dates and numbers Images Layout Lead section Linking Lists Classification Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categorization Template namespace WMF List of policies Friendly space policy Licensing and copyright Privacy policy Values FAQ List of all policies and guidelines List of policies List of guidelines Lists of attempts in creating fundamental principles v t e Wikipedia referencing Policies and guidelines Verifiability Biographies of living persons Identifying reliable sources Medicine Citing sources Scientific citations General advice Citation needed Find sources Combining sources Offline sources Referencing styles Citing sources Citation Style 1 Citation Style 2 Citation Style Vancouver LSA Comics Citation templates Reflist template Inline citations Footnotes Parenthetical referencing Punctuation and footnotes Shortened footnotes Nesting footnotes Help for beginners Reference-tags Citations quick reference Introduction to referencing Referencing with citation templates Referencing without using templates Referencing dos and don'ts Citing Wikipedia Advanced help Cite link labels Citation tools Cite errors Cite messages Converting between references formats Reference display customization References and page numbers Template documentation {{Edit refs}} {{Refref}} {{Refref2}} {{Refstart}} Tools Wikipedia Library Retrieved from "" Categories: Wikipedia content guidelinesWikipedia reliable sourcesWikipedia verifiabilityWikipedia sourcesHidden categories: Wikipedia semi-protected project pages

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadView sourceView 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 informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version In other projects Wikiversity Languages AfrikaansالعربيةAzərbaycancaবাংলাБеларускаяБеларуская (тарашкевіца)‎БългарскиCatalàЧӑвашлаČeštinaDanskΕλληνικάEspañolEsperantoفارسیFrançaisGalegoગુજરાતી한국어ՀայերենBahasa IndonesiaÍslenskaItalianoBasa JawaქართულიҚазақшаLietuviųMagyarമലയാളംمازِرونیBahasa MelayuNederlands日本語Norskଓଡ଼ିଆOʻzbekcha/ўзбекчаPolskiPortuguêsRomânăРусскийСаха тылаShqipSicilianuසිංහලSimple EnglishSlovenčinaکوردیСрпски / srpskiSrpskohrvatski / српскохрватскиSvenskaТатарча/tatarçaไทยТоҷикӣTürkçeУкраїнськаاردوTiếng Việt粵語中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 18 March 2018, at 13:03. 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":"0.532","walltime":"0.670","ppvisitednodes":{"value":3080,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":185024,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":7868,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":13,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":32,"limit":500},"unstrip-depth":{"value":0,"limit":20},"unstrip-size":{"value":14334,"limit":5000000},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 546.164 1 -total"," 24.73% 135.059 2 Template:Reflist"," 15.15% 82.718 17 Template:Shortcut"," 13.51% 73.802 6 Template:Cite_web"," 8.76% 47.833 9 Template:Navbox"," 8.27% 45.182 1 Template:Subcat_guideline"," 7.83% 42.759 1 Template:Ombox"," 6.89% 37.658 1 Template:Notability"," 5.70% 31.114 1 Template:Ambox"," 5.48% 29.924 1 Template:Pp-semi-indef"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.280","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":7268527,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1286","timestamp":"20180318130324","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":91,"wgHostname":"mw1330"});});

Wikipedia:Reliable_source - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Reliable_source More Links

This Page Is Semi-protected.Wikipedia:WikiProject TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismWikipedia:ReliabilityWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesWikipedia:What "Ignore All Rules" MeansWikipedia:Ignore All RulesWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia Talk:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:CITECategory:Wikipedia GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesCategory:Wikipedia Behavioral GuidelinesWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Conflict Of InterestWikipedia:Courtesy VanishingWikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:Please Do Not Bite The NewcomersWikipedia:Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia To Illustrate A PointWikipedia:EtiquetteWikipedia:Gaming The SystemWikipedia:User PagesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia DiscussionWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:SignaturesCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:Fringe TheoriesWikipedia:Non-free ContentWikipedia:Offensive MaterialWikipedia:Do Not Include The Full Text Of Lengthy Primary SourcesWikipedia:Do Not Create HoaxesWikipedia:Patent NonsenseWikipedia:External LinksWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia Editing GuidelinesWikipedia:Article SizeWikipedia:Be BoldHelp:Edit SummaryWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Make Technical Articles UnderstandableWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia CategorizationWikipedia:Categories, Lists, And Navigation TemplatesWikipedia:CategorizationWikipedia:DisambiguationWikipedia:SubpagesCategory:Wikipedia Style GuidelinesWikipedia:Manual Of StyleWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ContentsWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ListsWikipedia:Manual Of Style/TablesCategory:Wikipedia Deletion GuidelinesWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Speedy KeepWikipedia:Deletion Guidelines For AdministratorsWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesTemplate:Guideline ListTemplate Talk:Guideline ListWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:CITEWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardEnlargeWikipedia:BESTSOURCESWikipedia:Third-party SourcesRandom HouseCambridge University PressWikipedia:PublishedWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:PublishedWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:RecentismWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:INTEXTWikipedia:ASFWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewCitation IndexWikipedia:UNDUEMedicineMeta-analysisReview ArticlesPredatory JournalsHijacked JournalsWikipedia:SPSHigher Education AccreditationCitation IndexWikipedia:ShortcutNews AgencyBBC NewsReutersInterfaxAgence France-PresseUnited Press InternationalAssociated PressOpinion PieceEditorialOp-edWikipedia:INTEXTHuman Interest StoryJunk Food NewsChurnalismWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIPWikipedia:CIRCULARList Of Wire ServicesCorrection (newspaper)Wikipedia:ELWikipedia:VERIFYWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:Neutrality Of SourcesWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:INTEXTBetty FriedanHarry MagdoffBarry GoldwaterWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:SOURCEPredatory Open Access PublishingWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:VerifiabilityPersonal Web PageSelf-publishingTwitterInternet ForumWikipedia:ShortcutInternet ForumInternet Movie DatabaseAncestry.comContent FarmWikiWikipediaHelp:LinkWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Third-party SourcesWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:VerifiabilityTwitterTumblrFacebookWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:NamespaceWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:SecondaryWikipedia:TertiaryWikipedia:SELFSOURCEWikipedia:PrimaryWikipedia:No Original ResearchTemplate:Primary Source-inlineTemplate:Better SourceTemplate:Primary SourcesTemplate:Refimprove ScienceWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Literature ReviewSystematic ReviewMedical JournalMedical GuidelineMOS:QUOTEWikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTITWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:SYNTHReview ArticleWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:ShortcutOpinion PieceSelf-publishingZineBlogTwitterWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Notability (events)Wikipedia:NOTNEWSOn The MediaWikipedia:PSTSWikipedia:RecentismTemplate:CurrentTemplate:Recent DeathWikipedia:Current Event TemplatesWikipedia:No Disclaimers In ArticlesWikipedia:Template Messages/Cleanup/Verifiability And SourcesTemplate:NotabilityWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Independent SourcesWikipedia:MergingWikipedia:RedirectWikipedia:Deletion PolicyHelp:Maintenance Template RemovalTemplate:FactTemplate:CnWikipedia:Citation NeededTemplate:VcTemplate:RsWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:Fringe TheoriesWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Articles On SourcesWikipedia:Applying Reliability GuidelinesWikipedia:CherrypickingWikipedia:Children's, Adult New Reader, And Large Print Sources Questionable On ReliabilityWikipedia:Wikipedia ClonesWikipedia:Common KnowledgeWikipedia:How To Mine A SourceWikipedia:InaccuracyWikipedia:Independent SourcesWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (history)Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (law)Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (natural Sciences)Wikipedia:NPOV Means Neutral Editors, Not Neutral ContentWikipedia:Offline SourcesWikipedia:Reliable Source ExamplesWikipedia:Reliable Sources/CostWikipedia:Reliable Sources/FlawsWikipedia:Potentially Unreliable SourcesWikipedia:Use Of Tertiary SourcesWikipedia:Video LinksWikipedia:Free English Newspaper SourcesWikipedia:List Of Online Newspaper ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared ResourcesWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource RequestList Of Academic Databases And Search EnginesList Of Digital Library ProjectsWikipedia:WikiProject Video Games/SourcesWikipedia:Reliable Sources ChecklistWikipedia:Current Science And Technology SourcesWikipedia:News SourcesWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/DispatchesWikipedia:WikiProject Fact And Reference CheckChange Detection And NotificationSource CriticismWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource RequestWikipedia:VerifiabilityPrivate EyeWikipedia:VandalismJeffrey BeallGina KolataJohn BohannonDigital Object IdentifierSalon (website)Daily MailWikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220Jeffrey BeallThe Charleston AdvisorJeffrey BeallRandall MunroeGeek.comBenjamin WittesLawfare (blog)Template:Wikipedia Policies And GuidelinesTemplate Talk:Wikipedia Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Five PillarsWikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:Ignore All RulesWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Image Use PolicyWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A DictionaryWikipedia:Article TitlesWikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:AutobiographyWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:Do Not Include The Full Text Of Lengthy Primary SourcesWikipedia:PlagiarismWikipedia:Do Not Create HoaxesWikipedia:Fringe TheoriesWikipedia:Patent NonsenseWikipedia:External LinksWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:Editing PolicyWikipedia:HarassmentWikipedia:VandalismWikipedia:Ignore All RulesWikipedia:No Personal AttacksWikipedia:Ownership Of ContentWikipedia:Edit WarringWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Sock PuppetryWikipedia:No Legal ThreatsWikipedia:Child ProtectionWikipedia:Paid-contribution DisclosureWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Conflict Of InterestWikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia To Illustrate A PointWikipedia:EtiquetteWikipedia:Gaming The SystemWikipedia:Please Do Not Bite The NewcomersWikipedia:Courtesy VanishingWikipedia:Responding To Threats Of HarmWikipedia:Deletion PolicyWikipedia:Proposed DeletionWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Attack PageWikipedia:OversightWikipedia:Proposed Deletion Of Biographies Of Living PeopleWikipedia:Proposed Deletion (books)Wikipedia:Revision DeletionWikipedia:AdministratorsWikipedia:Banning PolicyWikipedia:Blocking PolicyWikipedia:Protection PolicyWikipedia:Article SizeWikipedia:Be BoldWikipedia:DisambiguationWikipedia:HatnoteWikipedia:Set Index ArticlesWikipedia:SubpagesWikipedia:User PagesWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:SignaturesWikipedia:Broad-concept ArticleWikipedia:Project NamespaceWikipedia:WikiProject Council/GuideWikipedia:Manual Of StyleWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ContentsWikipedia:Manual Of Style/AccessibilityWikipedia:Make Technical Articles UnderstandableWikipedia:Manual Of Style/Dates And NumbersWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ImagesWikipedia:Manual Of Style/LayoutWikipedia:Manual Of Style/Lead SectionWikipedia:Manual Of Style/LinkingWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ListsWikipedia:Categories, Lists, And Navigation TemplatesWikipedia:CategorizationWikipedia:Template NamespaceWikipedia:List Of Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:PrinciplesTemplate:Wikipedia ReferencingTemplate Talk:Wikipedia ReferencingWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Scientific Citation GuidelinesWikipedia:Citation NeededHelp:Find SourcesWikipedia:Combining SourcesWikipedia:Offline SourcesHelp:Overview Of Referencing StylesWikipedia:Citing SourcesHelp:Citation Style 1Help:Citation Style 2Help:Citation Style VancouverCategory:LSA Style Citation TemplatesCategory:Comics Citation TemplatesWikipedia:Citation TemplatesTemplate:ReflistWikipedia:Inline CitationHelp:FootnotesWikipedia:Parenthetical ReferencingMOS:PUNCTFOOTHelp:Shortened FootnotesWikipedia:Nesting FootnotesHelp:Referencing For BeginnersHelp:ReftagsHelp:Citations Quick ReferenceHelp:Introduction To Referencing/1Help:Referencing For Beginners With Citation TemplatesHelp:Referencing For Beginners Without Using TemplatesWikipedia:References Dos And Don'tsWikipedia:Citing WikipediaHelp:Cite Link LabelsHelp:Citation ToolsHelp:Cite ErrorsHelp:Cite MessagesHelp:Converting Between References FormatsHelp:Reference Display CustomizationHelp:References And Page NumbersTemplate:Edit RefsTemplate:RefrefTemplate:Refref2Template:RefstartWikipedia:The Wikipedia LibraryHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia Reliable SourcesCategory:Wikipedia VerifiabilityCategory:Wikipedia SourcesCategory:Wikipedia Semi-protected Project PagesDiscussion 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]This Page Is Protected. You Can View Its Source [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