Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:47, 1 December 2006 view sourceJmabel (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators90,312 editsm →Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: subject-verb agreement← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:04, 1 December 2006 view source JYolkowski (talk \| contribs)13,565 edits replace page contents with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/rewrite; see talkNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Misplaced Pages articles should use '''reliable published sources'''.		Misplaced Pages articles should use '''reliable published sources'''.

			Some sources are more reliable than others. Sources that are more reliable are preferred over those that are less reliable. However, reliability is not a binary condition; rather, there are degrees of reliability.
	This page provides guidance about how to identify reliable sources. It is advisory only and '''is not binding''' except insofar as it repeats policy pages. The relevant policy pages regarding the need for sources on Misplaced Pages are ] (NOR) and ] (V).

			==Why use reliable sources?==
	Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. (See ]). Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. <ref>Wales, Jimmy. , WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006.</ref>

			Sources are used for one of three purposes within Misplaced Pages.
	== Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources ==
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:No original research}}
	* A ''']''' is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies or statistics compiled by authoritative agencies. Primary-source material may require training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or subject to "Using online and self-published sources" section of this procedure, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims.

			*To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
	* A ''']''' summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. In general, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.
			*To provide amplifying material around an assertion to provide context or illustration to the reader. Sources used in this manner can be directly referenced or provided under the References heading.
			*Author credit, see ] for further discussion.

			For these two purposes, the level of reliability around those sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Misplaced Pages standards for ], ], and ]. Accurate ] allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.
	* A ''']''' usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Misplaced Pages, are tertiary sources. Misplaced Pages articles may not cite Misplaced Pages articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. However Misplaced Pages may be used as a primary source about Misplaced Pages, subject to the constraints above. Publications such as the '']'', ''World Book'', and ''Encarta'' are regarded as reliable sources for bare facts such as names and dates. Scholars and professors warn their students away from these general encyclopedias because they are strictly space limited and rarely have the space to explain the nuances, look at alternative explanations, examine the scholarship or provide citations to the primary sources or the scholarly literature. Instead they give a "least common denominator." Usually most articles are written or updated by staffers, not experts. (If it's unsigned, it's written by a staffer.) They are adequate only when solid secondary sources are not available. However, some of the older encyclopedias continue to be useful (they had more space to work with and it was more prestigious to write for them)-- such as and the .

			Assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources.
	==Requesting sources==
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
	It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. '''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question''', and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the {{tl\|fact}} template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding {{tl\|not verified}} or {{tl\|unsourced}} at the top of the page. See ] and ], which are policy, and ].

			If all sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability this should indicate to the reader that the content should be treated with a degree of scepticism or that the topic is not suitable for inclusion.
	Do not remove statements that you believe to be both true and ], simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical.

	==~~Biographies~~ of ~~living persons~~==		==Aspects of reliability==
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons}}
	Unsourced or poorly sourced questionable material, whether negative or positive, in articles about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalists, we are an encyclopedia. <ref>Jimmy Wales about "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" </ref>

			In assessing the suitability of a source for the purposes of research a number of aspects should be considered:
	== Beware false authority ==
	Look out for false claims of authority. Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.

	Prefer sources with relevant doctoral degrees or published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. Textbooks aimed at ] students do not try to be authoritative and are subject to political approval in some countries.

			*Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure of the authority of the content:
	;Authority of authors : Prefer authors with an established reputation in the field where Misplaced Pages uses them for reference.

			:*Expertise of the originator with respect to the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.
	;Authority of underlying sources : Take a look at the sources your source is using. If the original sources are poor, the quality of the information is not likely to be improved by laundering through a putatively reliable source.

			:*Bias of the originator with respect to the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on ].
	== Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence ==
	Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

			*Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. ''Self published sources'' such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (]) and other sources with ''editorial oversight'', which is less reliable itself than professional or ''peer reviewed'' journal (Nature).
	* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
	* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable ].
	* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
	* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a ] to silence them.

			*Replicability—Can the conclusions of the source be reached using the information available or is there any indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially are there any ''leaps of faith'' in the source:
	Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple ] and ] sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

			:*Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
	== Using online and self-published sources ==
	===Evaluating reliability===
	Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

			::*Confidentiality—Sources which are considered ''confidential'' by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority. Given that the original cannot be used to validate the reference then these should be treated with caution.
	Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically ] publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers.

			:*Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
	* With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
	* Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures.

			* Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or reccomends it.
	=== Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet ===
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
	Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions - see the section on ].

			*Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information. Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. Should now newer sources be available it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.
	The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as ] or , where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the and can be considered reliable.

			*Persistence—Should a reader go to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, then the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become ''broken''. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence therefore web citations should be treated with caution.
	===Self-published sources===
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
	A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and ] are largely not acceptable as sources.

			These issues are particularly pertinent to Misplaced Pages where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources are comparable in their reliability with respect to a topic, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability with respect to the subject in different contexts.
	Exceptions to this may be when a '''well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise''', or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these ''may'' be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously. Another exception may be when an individual publishes their own personal biographical material (they are a subject matter expert in this case). See "Self-published sources in articles about the writers of those sources" later in this guideline.

			In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources that are available to its editors. ] is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{Tl\|unreliable}} template.
	However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

			==Types of source material==
	Another exception may be an ] with expert ]. Moderators are like ]s because they review the material posted, and challenge or correct any factual errors. This exception would be appropriate for fields that are not well covered by textbooks, and where experts traditionally publish online.

			Three classes of course exist, each of which can be used within Misplaced Pages:
	Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all.

			*''']'''—The provision of direct evidence about the subject. Primary sources would be produced by a participant or direct observer. Official reports, letters and eyewitness accounts. Primary material may require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration each of which would constitute ]. Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they meet the preceding principles and then only to make purely descriptive claims about the topic.
	====]====
	YouTube is a website where the contributors may be unknown, and in which material useful to Misplaced Pages articles may be suspect of copyright violations. However, YouTube also has partnership deals with numerous major media publishers and actively removes videos suspected of copyright infringement from its site. Editors should apply common sense and caution when using online video material as sources.

			*''']'''—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesise a conclusion. In general, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.
	===Self-published sources in articles about themselves===
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
	Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

			*''']'''—Summarised material drawn from secondary sources. These sources may lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. Tertiary sources can be used to support the declaration of simple data such as dates and dimensions however should be avoided if secondary sources provide coverage.
	* relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
	* not contentious;
	* not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
	* about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

			Ideally a topic should contain reference to a number of independent sources to demonstrate a rigorous approach to the development of the article.
	The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

			==Convenience links==
	===Self-published sources as secondary sources===
	~~{{main\|~~Misplaced Pages:~~Verifiability}}~~		''Also see ]''
	'''Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.''' That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

			The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal ] to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to ] famous work '']'' might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:
	Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

			<blockquote>{{cite book \|last=Smith \|first=Adam \|authorlink=Adam Smith \|editor=ed. Edwin Cannan \|title=The Wealth of Nations \|origyear=1776 \|edition=Fifth edition \|date=1904 \|publisher=Methuen and Co \|location=London}}, available at </blockquote>
	=== Partisan websites ===
	The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

			Such links are unique in how reliablility is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convinience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original.
	===Extremist websites===
	Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution.

			==Examples==
	===Company and organization websites===
			See ] for examples of sources and to what degree editors consider them to be reliable or not.
	Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain ]. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.

	==Wikisource==
	If you find a print source that is out of copyright or that is available on compatible licensing terms, add it to ] and link to it there (in addition to the normal scholarly citation). Many significant out-of-copyright books have already been put online by other projects.

	==Finding good sources==
	Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form. If you can't find good sources on the web, try a local library or bookstore. Major university libraries usually have larger collections than do municipal libraries.

	Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming. Your local ] or academic ] may not have the work cited by an article on its shelves. Often you can ask for a book through ], but this can sometimes take several weeks to arrive. New tools are available online to make this work easier. Services such as , , and the ] allow you to search the full text of thousands of books. In addition, many similar subscription-based services may be available through your public, college, university or graduate school libraries.

	When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a ] in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. If there is an ] for the book, be sure to include it. Use the ISBN to link to the book, since several of these sites display only selected materials from the books they have online.

	Hint: Services such as Google Books often have poorly OCR-ed text. This is especially true for names and words with diacritics where searches often come up with nothing. A way around this is to search for common OCR mistakes.

	The Misplaced Pages special page '''Book sources''' will enable readers to click on the ISBN number of your book citation and search a variety of library databases and retailers to find it. For example the citation:
	:Harvey, Andrew, ''Songs of Kabir'', Weiser Books (January 2002), ISBN 1578632498
	Clicking on the ISBN number will enable users to "find this book" at Amazon.com, public libraries, etc.

	== Sources in languages other than English ==
	{{main\|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
	Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.

	Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Misplaced Pages editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

	Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

	* Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
	* Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

	== Advice specific to subject area ==
	=== History ===
	The ] reviews around 1,000 books each year.
	'''' (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history.

	Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues. In recent decades, many more primary documents (such as letters and papers of historical figures) have been made easily available in bound volumes or online. For instance, the project at Princeton begun in 1950 has just published volume 30, reaching February 1801. More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the ''London Times'', the ''New York Times'' and other major newspapers. Some of these are proprietary and must be accessed through libraries; others such as , publishing of 19th century magazines, are open to the public.

	Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards. Reputable history books and journal articles always include footnotes and bibliographies giving the sources used in great detail. Most journals contain book reviews by scholars that evaluate the quality of new books, and usually summarize some of their new ideas. The ''American Historical Review'' (all fields of history) and ''Journal of American History'' (US history) each publish 1000 or more full-length reviews a year. Many of the major journals are online, as far back as 1885, especially through . A good book or article will spell out the historiographical debates that are ongoing, and alert readers to other major studies.

	On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, ''American: History and Life'' (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and ''Historical Abstracts'' (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources. The most useful is ''The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature,'' edited by Mary Beth Norton and Pamela Gerardi 2 vol (1995), which is an annotated bibliography of authoritative sources in all fields of history.

	In historical pages the user is assisted by having an annotated bibliography of the best resources. Users will often have to use inter-library loan to obtain books, so a short annotation explaining the value and POV of the book may be helpful.

	There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Misplaced Pages. ''General'' encyclopedias, like the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or ''Encarta'', sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.

	College textbooks are updated every few years, are evaluated by many specialists, and usually try to keep abreast of the scholarship, but they are often without footnotes and usually do not spell out the historiographical debates. Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Misplaced Pages editors. Every place has guide books, which usually contain a capsule history of the area, but the great majority do not pretend to be authoritative.

	On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution.

	The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources.

	* See also ]

	=== Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine ===

	==== Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus ====
	Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is ]ed. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report what is in the opinion of the editors unimportant or questionable research. In particular be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the ] and ] affairs.)

	The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the ] and the ].)

	Honesty and the policies of ] and ] demand that we present the prevailing "]". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The ] can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.

	There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Misplaced Pages not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See ], which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See ].)

	Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

	==== In science, avoid citing the popular press ====
	The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.

	What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers.

	==== Which science journals are reputable? ====
	One method to determine which journals are held in high esteem by scientists is to look at ] ratings, which track how many times a given journal is cited by articles in other publications. Be aware, however, that these impact factors are not necessarily valid for all academic fields and specialties.

	In general, journals published by prominent scientific societies are of better quality than those produced by commercial publishers. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's journal '']'' is among the most highly regarded; the journals '']'' and '']'' are notable non-society publications.

	Keep in mind that even a reputable journal may occasionally post a retraction of an experimental result. Articles may be selected on the grounds that they are interesting or highly promising, not merely because they seem reliable.

	==== arXiv preprints and conference abstracts ====
	There are a growing number of sources on the web that publish preprints of articles and conference abstracts, the most popular of these being ]. Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a ], and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material. See the section above on ]. Most of them are also ''primary sources'', to be treated with the caution as described in various sections of this guideline.

	Researchers may publish on arXiv for different reasons: to establish priority in a competitive field, to make available newly developed methods to the scientific community while the publication is undergoing peer-review (a specially lengthy process in mathematics), and sometimes to publish a paper that has been rejected from several journals or to bypass peer-review for publications of dubious quality. Editors should be aware that preprints in such collections, like those in the ] collection, may or may not be accepted by the journal for which they were written — in some cases they are written solely for the arXiv and are never submitted for publication. Similarly, material presented at a conference may not merit publication in a scientific journal.

	==== Evaluating experiments and studies ====
	There are techniques that scientists use to prevent common errors, and to help others replicate results. Some characteristics to look for are ] (such as ] controls), and ] methods for medical studies. Detail about the design and implementation of the experiment should be available, as well as raw data. Reliable studies don't just present conclusions.

	=== Statistics ===
	Statistical information is easily and often misinterpreted by the public, by journalists, and by scientists. It should be checked and explained with the utmost care, with reference to published sources.

	See ], ], and ] for common errors and abuses.

	=== Law ===
	First of all, remember there are several legal traditions and that laws are only valid in their own jurisdiction. The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators, due to variances across areas of jurisdiction.

	When discussing legal texts, it is in general better to quote from the text, or quote from reputable jurists, than to quote from newspaper reports, although newspaper reports in good newspapers are acceptable too. The journalist who wrote the paper may not be trained as a lawyer, although s/he may have access to a wider variety of legal experts than many lawyers do, so judge the quality of the report according to how well that journalist, or that newspaper, has covered legal issues in the past.

	=== Popular culture and fiction ===
	Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet, and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. See ].

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* ], policy
	* ], policy
	* ], policy
	* ]
	* ], style guide
	* ], style guide		* ], style guide
	* ], guideline		* ], guideline
	* ], essay		* ], essay
	* ]		* ]
	* ]

	== References ==		== References ==

Revision as of 22:04, 1 December 2006

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages ].
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

]

Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable published sources.

Some sources are more reliable than others. Sources that are more reliable are preferred over those that are less reliable. However, reliability is not a binary condition; rather, there are degrees of reliability.

Why use reliable sources?

Sources are used for one of three purposes within Misplaced Pages.

To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
To provide amplifying material around an assertion to provide context or illustration to the reader. Sources used in this manner can be directly referenced or provided under the References heading.
Author credit, see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights for further discussion.

For these two purposes, the level of reliability around those sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Misplaced Pages standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.

Assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources.

If all sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability this should indicate to the reader that the content should be treated with a degree of scepticism or that the topic is not suitable for inclusion.

Aspects of reliability

In assessing the suitability of a source for the purposes of research a number of aspects should be considered:

Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure of the authority of the content:

Expertise of the originator with respect to the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.

Bias of the originator with respect to the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (Nature).

Replicability—Can the conclusions of the source be reached using the information available or is there any indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially are there any leaps of faith in the source:

Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.

Confidentiality—Sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority. Given that the original cannot be used to validate the reference then these should be treated with caution.

Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.

Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or reccomends it.

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information. Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. Should now newer sources be available it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.

Persistence—Should a reader go to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, then the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence therefore web citations should be treated with caution.

These issues are particularly pertinent to Misplaced Pages where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources are comparable in their reliability with respect to a topic, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability with respect to the subject in different contexts.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources that are available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

Types of source material

Three classes of course exist, each of which can be used within Misplaced Pages:

Primary—The provision of direct evidence about the subject. Primary sources would be produced by a participant or direct observer. Official reports, letters and eyewitness accounts. Primary material may require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration each of which would constitute original research. Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they meet the preceding principles and then only to make purely descriptive claims about the topic.

Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesise a conclusion. In general, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary—Summarised material drawn from secondary sources. These sources may lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. Tertiary sources can be used to support the declaration of simple data such as dates and dimensions however should be avoided if secondary sources provide coverage.

Ideally a topic should contain reference to a number of independent sources to demonstrate a rigorous approach to the development of the article.

Convenience links

Also see Misplaced Pages:Convenience links

The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to Adam Smith's famous work The Wealth of Nations might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:

Smith, Adam (1904) . ed. Edwin Cannan (ed.). The Wealth of Nations (Fifth edition ed.). London: Methuen and Co. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help), available at Wikisource

Such links are unique in how reliablility is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convinience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original.

Examples

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/examples for examples of sources and to what degree editors consider them to be reliable or not.

References

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.

Category:

Misplaced Pages resources for researchers