Wikipedia:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

{{Redirect|WP:V|discussing particular sources|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|vandalism|Wikipedia:Vandalism}}

{{pp|small=yes}}

{{nutshell|Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by [[WP:INCITE|inline citations]].}}

{{Content policy list}}

{{Short URL box|FVY}}

 

 

 

For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]]. Verifiability, [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright policy]].

 

==Responsibility for providing citations<span class="anchor" id="Burden"></span><span class="anchor" id="Burden of evidence"></span>==

{{Redirect|WP:PROVEIT|the editing tool|Wikipedia:ProveIt}}

{{Redirect|WP:CHALLENGE|challenging closes|Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing}}

{{See also|Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems}}

 

 

 

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)&mdash;though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.

<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->

{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCE|WP:SOURCES}}

 

===What counts as a reliable source===

 

====Best sources====

 

===Newspaper and magazine blogs===

{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}}

 

===Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline<span id="Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline"></span>===

{{redirect|WP:NOTRELIABLE|Wikipedia's own reliability|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source}}

{{see also|Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources}}

 

===Questionable sources===

<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't break. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->

{{policy shortcut|WP:SPS|WP:SELFPUB|WP:SELFPUBLISH|WP:BLOGS|WP:EXPERTSPS}}

 

* The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160510203400/https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html University of California, Berkeley, library] states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20111005165358/http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ Princeton University] offers this understanding in its publication, ''Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011)'': "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."

{{Merge from|section=yes|Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source|date=December 2023|reason=Near-exact duplicate sections, even down to the list items.|discuss=Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE to WP:ABOUTSELF}}

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

 

 

===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it===

{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:NOENG|WP:NONENG}}

{{see also|Wikipedia:Translators available|Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions}}

 

====Citing====

==Other issues==

===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===

{{redirect|WP:ONUS|the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability|WP:BURDEN}}

{{main|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content}}

===Exceptional claims require exceptional sources===

{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG|WP:EXCEPTIONAL|WP:EXTRAORDINARY|WP:ECREE}}

Any exceptional claim requires {{em|multiple}} high-quality sources.<ref>[[David Hume|Hume, David]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=H1rKYw9SnTgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86 ''An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding''], Forgotten Books, 1984, pp. 82, 86; first published in 1748 as ''Philosophical enquiries concerning human Understanding'', (or the Oxford 1894 edition {{OL|7067396M}} at para. 91) "A wise man{{nbsp}}... proportions his belief to the evidence{{nbsp}}... That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony is of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior." In the 18th century, [[Pierre-Simon Laplace]] reformulated the idea as "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." [[Marcello Truzzi]] recast it again, in 1978, as "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." [[Carl Sagan]], finally, popularized the concept broadly as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in 1980 on ''[[Cosmos: A Personal Voyage]]''; this was the formulation originally used on Wikipedia.</ref> [[Red flag (idiom)|Warnings (red flags)]] that should prompt extra caution include:

* Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

 

===Resources===

 

===Essays===

* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|Verifiability, not truth]]

* [[Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source]]

{{div col end}}