Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines , as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community .
a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editors; a list of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources; a list of independent or affiliated sources; a list of self-published or traditionally published sources; a representative sample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existence
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Posts on Usenet are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous. One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources.
Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. There are at least two ways in which the term secondary source is used on Wikipedia. This page deals primarily with the classification of reliable sources in terms of article content. The classification used specifically for notability is addressed in a separate section at the end.
Whether a source is usable also depends on context. Sources that are reliable for some material are not reliable for other material. For instance, otherwise unreliable self-published sources are usually acceptable to support uncontroversial information about the source's author. You should always try to use the best possible source ...
"Original research" is a claim, including interpretation or analysis of facts and references, for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove original research. Citing reliable published sources is essential in our goal of building a ...
Inclusion on the list doesn't automatically mean the absolute truth is on these websites, so always be critical and compare information between different sources. The content of the subsections is alphabetically organized. Please add free online sources if you know some that are missing in this list, but try to keep it relevant and trustworthy.