Wikipedia:Using sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:41, 2 December 2007

Latest revision as of 18:17, 7 May 2012

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{essay|WP:USING|WP:SOURCEUSE}}

It is important that sources are chosen and used properly in Wikipedia. References must be [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], used in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset#Guidelines for writingWriting high -quality articles|three core content policies]]. For stylistic and formatting issues, please refer to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. For the suitability of certain types of content, see [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. For guidance on the encyclopedic suitability of subjects or articles as a whole, refer to [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. For articles about living people, see [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]].

==Sources==

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of the content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, consideration should be given to the kind of source used, to ensure that articles [[WP:NPOV|properly represent]] generally accepted knowledge about a given topic. Sources can be divided into two broad categories for these purposes, based upon their quality and reliability: reliable third-party sources and auxiliary sources.<ref>Various professional fields treat the types of sources in differing fashions, but such distinctions are not our concern here. The main focus here is distinguishing between which references articles should principally rely on, and which references have a tendency to be misused.</ref>

Various professional fields treat the types of sources in differing fashions, but such distinctions are not our concern here. The main focus here is distinguishing between which references articles should principally rely on, and which references have a tendency to be misused. Sources can be divided into two broad categories for these purposes, based upon their quality and reliability: reliable third-party sources and auxiliary sources.

==Reliable sources==

Line 13 ⟶ 11:

===Reliable third-party sources===

Reliable third-party sources should be the principal reference material for Wikipedia articles, whenever possible. These sources are up-to-date, written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for, '''and''' released by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.<ref>Review articles and references providing a broad treatment, such as university-level textbooks, are particularly useful in summarizing large bodies of literature and research. Since Wikipedia summarizes broad knowledge on topics, such sources are valuable references.</ref> Third-party publications are preferable because they generally provide analysis, offer a more independent view<ref>This is not to say they are more ''objective''. These sources are simply independent from the subject.</ref> and provide a broader context for the subject. <ref>Examples of such references would be recent post-secondary textbooks, or a contemporary work released by a reputable publisher. Peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals are also considered reliable third-party publications.</ref> Care should be taken to avoid [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] and ensure the information cited is used in context.

===Using reliable third-party sources===

While articles should principally rely on reputable third-party sources, care should still be taken that the claims reported in the article are [[WP:V|verifiable]] in the references cited. Claims should not rely on unclear, incongruent or passing comments, even if the source is generally reliable. Claims left open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not stated in the reference, or extrapolating a position from the claims in a source, is original research regardless of the type of source. Claims based on statements and sections from reliable sources directly dealing with the central topic of the work are preferred. It is good to report information from sections that present an extended argument with a conclusion strongly consistent with the argument. It is important that reliable references are cited ''in context'' and ''on topic''.

==Auxiliary sources==

Auxiliary sources should only be used with care, or ''in context'' as used in reliable third-party sources. References from questionable, historical and "raw" sources are examples of auxiliary sources. References from the subject, or those close to the subject, are also examples of auxiliary sources. <ref>Examples include notable conspiracy theory websites, [[Bede]]'s ''Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum'' and transcripts of the Nixon tapes.</ref> A third-party source from one article may be treated as an auxiliary source in another, because the focus has changed. <ref>For example, a book by a notable historian is a reliable third-party source for the events it covers, but it would be considered an auxiliary source in the article about the historian.</ref> Generally, <u>any source that does not qualify as a reliable third-party source</u> is grouped in this category. The use of these raw, first-hand, or out-of-date sources lends itself to inaccurate reporting, undue weight, and original research. Thus, they should only be used with caution and extreme care.

===Using auxiliary sources===

Articles should usually rely on reliable third-party sources, but there are [[WP:IAR|some occasionsexceptions]] and [[WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves|exceptionsoccasions]] when auxiliary sources may prove useful.<ref>Also, there is a broad consensus for widespread use of some auxiliary sources, such as using census data in articles on populated places and citing interviews as direct sources of a subject's self-identification, opinions and statements.</ref> Article claims that rely on an auxiliary source should '''(1)''' only report what the source states, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and '''(2)''' make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on auxiliary sources should be careful to comply with ''both'' conditions. Of course, auxiliary sources may be used freely ''as they are used in reliable publications''. <ref>In that instance, an editor would be relying on a reliable third-party reference to present, analyze and/or interpret an auxiliary source. The third-party publication helps avoid original research, recognize due weight and identify context.</ref>

Some of these sources may be particularly reliable and helpful in presenting a complete encyclopedic article, such as census data. Some auxiliary references may also be useful for providing supporting facts, figures or limited quotations to accompany claims and analysis from reliable third-party publications. However, serious care should be taken to avoid presenting a claim or interpretation, explicit or implied, differing from the reliable references cited. Auxiliary sources may also prove useful for topics in which they are a self-reference. Self-published and dubious sources are [[WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves|permitted in articles about themselves]], when used with care. Editors should use [[WP:COMMONSENSE|discretion]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] to identify such circumstances.

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:Wikipedia essays about verification]]

Some of these sources may be particularly reliable and helpful in presenting a complete encyclopedic article, such as census data. Some auxiliary references may also be useful for providing supporting facts, figures or limited quotations to accompany claims and analysis from reliable third-party publications. However, serious care should be taken to avoid presenting a claim or interpretation, explicit or implied, differing from the reliable references cited. Auxiliary sources may also prove useful for topics in which they are a self-reference. Self-published and dubious sources are [[WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves|permitted in articles about themselves]], when used with care. Editors should use [[WP:COMMONSENSE|discretion]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] to identify such circumstances.