Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight; a list of biased or unbiased sources; a list of sources that are guaranteed to be 100% correct regardless of context; a list of every source that has been discussed; a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editors
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.
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 .
Sources that are robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers are preferred. Especially for surprising or extraordinary results, the description should adhere closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by reliable secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research).
The following list is meant to help you with your own research, by offering links to respectable information sources on the web, available free of charge.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.
"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 ...
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.
These are general guidelines, but the topic of reliable sources is a complicated one, and is impossible to fully cover here. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Verifiability and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is also a list of commonly used sources with information on their reliability.