Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In an article entitled "Seeking Disambiguation", Annalisa Merelli interviewed Catalina Cruz, a candidate for office in Queens, New York in the 2018 election who had the notorious SEO disadvantage of having the same name as a porn star with a Wikipedia page. Merelli also interviewed the Wikipedia editor who wrote the candidate's ill-fated ...
Wikipedia shows every edit made by a username or an IP address; “Wikipedia even lists the top 1000 contributors with the most edits, some of whom have been identified by name in the popular press” [37]. Many authors also write under pseudonyms for print sources, especially those who write under pen names for fictional works.
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the referencing for beginners help page .
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
This page provides guidance about how to identify these. The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor.
A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:
Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post , are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.
How does the author make a living? If they work for a salary, they have an incentive to not get fired. That means if they are a professor at an established university and that's their main source of income, they have an incentive to avoid outright mendacity, since that'll get you fired.