enWikipedia:Reliable sources

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:RS WP:RELY WP:RELIABLE

This page is a guideline, it is not a policy: The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It supports and gives guidance concerning sourcing as stipulated on the core policy pages Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and either Verifiability or No original research, this page should be updated to accurately reflect the policy as presented on those pages.

Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Reliability of specific source types

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.

Scholarship

Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate.

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed.
• Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.

News organizations

Further information: Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Self-published sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)

Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above.

Extremist sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Claims of consensus

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Other examples

See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, business and commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

See also

• Wikipedia:Check your facts, essay
• Wikipedia:Common knowledge, essay
• Wikipedia:Independent sources, essay
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Synthesis / No original research

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

ar:ويكيبيديا:مصادر موثوقة bg:Уикипедия:Благонадеждни източници cs:Wikipedie:Věrohodné zdroje el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αξιόπιστες πηγές fa:ویکی‌پدیا:منابع معتبر ko:위키백과:신뢰할 수 있는 출처 it:Wikipedia:Fonti attendibili hu:Wikipédia:Megbízható források nl:Wikipedia:Betrouwbaarheid van bronnen ja:Wikipedia:信頼できる情報源 pt:Wikipedia:Fontes fiáveis ro:Wikipedia:Surse de încredere ru:Википедия:Авторитетные источники uk:Вікіпедія:Авторитетні джерела