Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: deleted sentence about Joy of Cooking and 50 Shades of Grey, as it doesn’t make sense to focus on titles alone without a context/claim; added other examples where a SPS might be the best or only source and reintroduced Joy of Cooking there |
→Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: in the list of 5 characteristics: deleted "published by a reputable publishing house...," as I couldn't find something like that in WP:RS, and deleted "except for the second one" as no longer relevant; deleted quotation marks as the quote is no longer on the current WP:RS page; added "independent" to the last bullet |
||
Line 106:
Conversely, properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not guarantee that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving.
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 professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes.
A self-published source can have all of these qualities
==Using self-published sources==
| |||