Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Using self-published sources: "Always" > "Usually"; and parallel structure |
Remove stray colon |
||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Supplement|interprets=multiple policies and guidelines|shortcut=WP:USESPS|shortcut2=WP:USINGSPS}}
'''Self-published works''' are those in which the author and publisher are the same. Anyone can self-publish information regardless of whether
In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify:
* Is the source '''self-published''' or not? (This is the topic of this page.)
Line 8:
* Is the source '''primary''' or not? (If so, then see [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources]].)
Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources.
This page deals only with the first question: '''identifying and correctly using self-published sources'''.
==Identifying self-published sources==
{{shortcut|WP:IDSPS}}
Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information:
Line 20 ⟶ 21:
If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.
The opposite of self-publishing is traditional publishing, such as [[HarperCollins]] publishing textbooks, [[Condé Nast]] publishing fashion magazines, [[Comcast]] publishing television news shows, or [[Elsevier]] publishing academic journals.
In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors. Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference.▼
▲In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors. Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference (though the last point may affect [[WP:SPS|whether you can cite the self-published source in a Wikipedia article]]).
Be careful in identifying the publishers of books. In some cases, authors will create a [[Doing business as|trade name]] so that it will look like a separate entity has published their works. If the author directly controls the decision to publish the books, then those books are still self-published. Self-published books may be printed by a [[vanity press]] or a publisher that prints books by only that author.
Line 26 ⟶ 29:
If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.
The 16th edition of ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' says, "Any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work." However, the converse isn't true: if a site does have a specific publisher or sponsoring body, it might still be self-published.
;Examples of self-published sources
* Almost all websites ''except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations)'', including:
**
** [[Web
**
** [[Social networking
** Sites with [[user-generated content]], including [[YouTube]], [[Tik Tok]], and [[Find A Grave]]
** Business, charitable, and [[Personal web page|personal websites]]
** Scholarly [[preprint]] articles (see [[List of preprint repositories]])
* Books printed through a [[vanity press]]
* Advertisements, pamphlets, and [[press
*
*
;Examples of non-self-published sources
* The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and [[op-ed]] pieces in newspapers (including online-only content of widely-circulated magazines and newspapers)
* Books published by established publishers (like [[Random House]])
* Research published in peer-reviewed journals
{| class="wikitable"
|+Comparison of publication models
!
!Example of traditional publisher
!Example of self-publishing
|-
!Book publishing
|
* External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters.
* If selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including [[developmental editing]] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book.
* The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (assuming the book sells).
* If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
* The money ultimately comes from book sales.
|
* The author(s) writes whatever they want.
* The author hires whichever [[vanity press]], e-book publishing platform, or printer they want.
* If the author needs help with editing, illustrating, designing, or marketing the book, then the author hires whoever they want and pays for their services.
* The hired company accepts anything that the author will pay for, with only necessary practical restrictions (e.g., if they don't have the right equipment for that type of [[book binding]]).
* The money originally comes from the author, who may (or may not) hope to recoup the original outlay through book sales.
|-
!Newspapers and magazines
|
* The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists.
* The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model).
* The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote.
* If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist gets paid the same even if the article is not published. If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
* The money ultimately comes from advertising revenue and/or [[Subscription business model|subscription sales]].
|
* The author(s) creates a publication, e.g., ''The Company Newsletter'' or ''The Weekly School News''.
* The author is frequently a group, e.g., an organization's marketing department or a fundraising team, but it may be a single-person publication (e.g., [[Substack]] newsletters).
* The author decides what stories to include, and writes them.
* If the author needs help with editing, illustrating, designing, marketing, website management, etc., then the author hires whoever they want and pays for their services.
* The author pays all publication expenses (e.g., printing and postage costs; e-mail and webhosting costs). Depending upon the context, the money may come from personal funds or departmental budgets.
|-
!Peer-reviewed journals
|
* The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hires editors.
* External authors submit whole papers.
* Staff editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish.
* The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds.
* If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
|
* The author writes a whole paper.
* The author finds a [[Predatory publishing|predatory publisher]] with a pay-to-publish model.
* The article is not peer reviewed. All articles that are plausibly connected to the journal's subject are accepted – as long as the payment has been received.
* The main job of the journal's editor, once the author's payment has been received, is to post the article online. (Having been paid to post it in the "journal", the editor wants to avoid [[breach of contract]] charges or having to give refunds.)
* The author can pay for the same article to be published in multiple journals, because the content is unimportant to the publication.
|}
== Different from other key characteristics ==
==="Self-published" does not mean "primary"===
Line 55 ⟶ 110:
* When the blog posting provides an analysis of an event that happened decades before, it is a secondary source for its subject matter.
* When the blog posting provides a simple list of tourist attractions in a given area, it is a tertiary source for its subject matter.
The relationship between the author and the publisher is the key point. If it's the same person (or the same group of people) doing both, then it's self-published. If it's a different person or group of people voluntarily deciding whether to make the authors' works available to the public, then it's non-self-published. The type of content is irrelevant. The same document can be self-published by the author or non-self-published by others:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Examples
|-
!
! Self-published
! Non-self-published
|-
! Primary source
| Alice Expert writes an original report about her experiment, and <u>she</u> posts <u>her own</u> report on her blog.
| Alice Expert writes an original report about her experiment, and the <u>independent editors</u> of an academic journal published <u>her</u> report in their academic journal.
|-
! Secondary source
| Alice Expert combines data from a dozen previously published experiments into a [[meta-analysis]], and <u>she</u> posts <u>her own</u> report on her blog.
| Alice Expert combines data from a dozen previously published experiments into a [[meta-analysis]], and the <u>independent editors</u> of an academic journal published <u>her</u> report in their academic journal.
|}
==="Self-published" does not mean "non-independent"===
Self-published sources can be independent sources or non-independent sources.
* A corporate website is self-published. When
* A personal blog is self-published. When
==The problem with self-published sources==
Line 89 ⟶ 162:
|sstyle =
}}
* The [[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."<ref>{{cite web|url=
* [[Princeton University]] offers this understanding in the publication ''Academic Integrity at Princeton'' (
{| class="wikitable"
▲* The [[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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://library.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html|title=Evaluating Web Pages: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask|website=[[University of California, Berkeley]]|date=May 8, 2012|accessdate=June 2, 2016}}</ref>
|+ Examples
▲* [[Princeton University]] offers this understanding in the 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other|title=Nonprint and Electronic Sources|year=2011|accessdate=June 2, 2016|website=[[Princeton University]]}}</ref>
|-
! Self-published
! Independent reviewer
|-
| Alice Expert writes about her experiment, and she hires a freelance editor to help her improve her draft before sending her book to a [[vanity press]]. If she disagrees with the editor, she can reject his advice, fire him, or (if the editor is employed by the self-publishing printer) go to a different printing house.
| Alice Expert writes about her experiment, and submitted it to the [[Editorial independence|independent editors]] of a magazine. If she disagrees with these editors, they won't publish her article in their publication.
|}
===Self-published doesn't mean
Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this
Self-published sources <em>can</em> be reliable, and they <em>can</em> be used (but not for [[WP:IS|third-party]] claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source
* If you are supporting a direct quotation * A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim, as with the best-selling self-published book ''The Joy of Cooking'' as a source for claims about cooking techniques.
* A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source.
According to our [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|content guideline on identifying reliable sources]], a reliable source has the following characteristics:
* It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
* It is published
* It is
* It is a third-party or independent source.
* It has
A self-published source can have all of these qualities
==Using self-published sources==
Self-published works should be examined carefully
Not all self-published sources are equal. A personal blog post claiming that the Twin Towers fell as the result of a controlled demolition, written by someone with no expertise, is not at the same level as a personal blog post about physics written by the chairperson of the physics department at a major university.
=== Non-self-published preferable ===
A non-self-published source that verifies the same information is usually preferred to a
=== Acceptable use of self-published works ===
# For certain claims by the author about
# The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional_sources|exceptional sources]]</ref> Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.<ref>Further examples of self published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and [[manifesto|electoral manifestos]]
#
=== Unacceptable use of self-published works ===
# Claims by the author
# Exceptional claims, even when the author is an established expert on the topic cited. (See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional_sources|Exceptional claims require exceptional sources]])
# Third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Line 134 ⟶ 219:
{{see|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources}}
'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about
{{tick}} '''Acceptable''': The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees.
Line 140 ⟶ 225:
{{tick}} '''Acceptable''': The self-published autobiography to support claims about the author.
{{cross}} '''Unacceptable''': Someone's personal blog about
===For claims by self-published authors about themselves===
{{See|WP:ABOUTSELF}}
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, even if the source is not a published expert in the field, so long as:
# the material is
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
| |||