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

Revision as of 13:24, 6 July 2020

Revision as of 14:55, 6 July 2020

Line 96:

==Using self-published sources==

Self-published works should be examined carefully to determine acceptability. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works:

# A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See [[#For claims by self-published authors about themselves]])

# Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.<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]]:</ref>

# A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns ''the source itself.'' For example, 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. Further, a self-published blog the republished the advertisement(s) would also be acceptable as a source.

# A self-published work may be used as a source when its very existence 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.

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.

===Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid===

Line 121 ⟶ 117:

A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one.

=== Acceptable use of self-published works ===

# A self-published source may be used forFor certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See [[#For claims by self-published authors about themselves]])

# Self-publishedThe sourcesauthor may be considered reliable when produced byis 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]]:</ref>

# AThe self-publishedvery workexistence mayof bethe usedsource assupports athe sourcestatement. when For example, for the statement, concerns"Members ''theof sourcehis itself.''own party Forcriticized examplehis 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. Further(Note, athis self-publishedacceptability blogdoes thenot republishedextend to supporting ''claims'' made in the advertisement(s), wouldonly alsothe existence of the claims, though the claims might still be acceptable asbased aon sourceother 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.

# Claims by the author him/her/itself don't meet the criteria in [[#For claims by self-published authors about themselves]])

# The author is an established expert on the topic cited but the claims are exceptional. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional_sources|exceptional sources]]

===For claims about living people===

Line 132 ⟶ 138:

{{cross}} '''Unacceptable''': Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.

===Self-published sources for notability===

Self-published sources are never useful for demonstrating the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of any subject.

===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, withouteven the requirement inif the case of self-published sourcessource thatis theynot bea published expertsexpert in the field, so long as:

# the material is not unduly self-serving and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional]] in nature;

# it does not involve claims about third parties;

Line 146 ⟶ 150:

# 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" ==