Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Not just about WP:SPS
Restoring the earlier order, in the hope of a cleaner diff
Line 12:
 
This page deals only with the first question: '''identifying and correctly using self-published sources'''.
 
==The problem with self-published sources==
{{Quote box
|title =
|quote = And then of course, you have this great rise since 2000 of self-published books and books that to all intents and purposes should not be self-published because they are not good enough to published and therefore shouldn’t be self-published.
|source = [[Tom Holland (author)|Tom Holland]]<ref>{{Cite podcast|url=http://www.historyextra.com/podcast/writing-history-21st-century
| title=Writing history in the 21st century
| website=
| publisher=[[BBC]]
| host=Matt Elton
| date=26 May 2016
| time=28:00
| access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref>
|align = right
|width = 170px
|border =
|fontsize = 80%
|bgcolor = cornsilk
|style =
|title_bg =
|title_fnt = 80%
|tstyle = center
|qalign = center
|qstyle =
|quoted =
|salign =
|sstyle =
}}
Self-published material is characterized by the ''lack of reviewers who are independent of the <u>author</u>'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.
 
* 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>
* [[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>
 
 
==Identifying self-published sources==
Line 63 ⟶ 30:
 
;Examples of self-published sources
 
* Almost all websites ''except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations)'', including:
** Blogs
Line 80 ⟶ 46:
* Books published by established publishers (like [[Random House]])
 
== "Self-published" does not mean "primary" or "non-independent" ==
 
==Using self="Self-published" does not mean sources"primary"===
{{See|Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources}}
Self-published works should be examined carefully to determine acceptability.
Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources.
 
A personal blog is always a self-published source. Here are examples of how different postings on the same blog could be classified:
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.
* When the blog posting provides information about what the author cooked last night, it is a primary source for its subject matter.
* 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.
 
==="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 it provides information about the business, it is non-independent.
* A personal blog is self-published. When it provides information about a book the blog's author borrowed from the library, it is independent of its subject matter.
 
==The problem with self-published sources==
{{Quote box
|title =
|quote = And then of course, you have this great rise since 2000 of self-published books and books that to all intents and purposes should not be self-published because they are not good enough to published and therefore shouldn’t be self-published.
|source = [[Tom Holland (author)|Tom Holland]]<ref>{{Cite podcast|url=http://www.historyextra.com/podcast/writing-history-21st-century
| title=Writing history in the 21st century
| website=
| publisher=[[BBC]]
| host=Matt Elton
| date=26 May 2016
| time=28:00
| access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref>
|align = right
|width = 170px
|border =
|fontsize = 80%
|bgcolor = cornsilk
|style =
|title_bg =
|title_fnt = 80%
|tstyle = center
|qalign = center
|qstyle =
|quoted =
|salign =
|sstyle =
}}
Self-published material is characterized by the ''lack of reviewers who are independent of the <u>author</u>'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.
 
* 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>
* [[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 doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid===
Line 102 ⟶ 111:
 
A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one.
 
==Using self-published sources==
Self-published works should be examined carefully to determine acceptability.
 
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.
 
=== Acceptable use of self-published works ===
Line 109 ⟶ 123:
# The very existence of the source supports the statement. For example, for the statement, "Members of his own party criticized his actions," self-published blogs by party members which contained such critical posts would be acceptable as a source. Similarly, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. (Note, this acceptability does not extend to supporting ''claims'' made in the advertisement, only the existence of the claims, though the claims might still be acceptable based on other items in this Acceptable Use list.)
# Certain self-published reproductions of items in the preceding bullet point. For example, a self-published blog the republished the advertisement(s) could also be acceptable as a source, especially if a non-self-published source is not available.
 
=== Unacceptable use of self-published works ===
# A non-self-published source that verifies the same information is available. These are always preferable.
Line 137 ⟶ 152:
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 
== "Self-published" does not mean "primary" or "non-independent" ==
 
==="Self-published" does not mean "primary"===
{{See|Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources}}
Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources.
 
A personal blog is always a self-published source. Here are examples of how different postings on the same blog could be classified:
* When the blog posting provides information about what the author cooked last night, it is a primary source for its subject matter.
* 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.
==="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 it provides information about the business, it is non-independent.
* A personal blog is self-published. When it provides information about a book the blog's author borrowed from the library, it is independent of its subject matter.
 
 
==Unpublished sources==