Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 .
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.
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).
Perennial sources Source Status Discussions Use List Last Summary Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) 2018 2018 2023 2020 2023. 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts.
Claims based on statements and sections from reliable sources directly dealing with the central topic of the work are preferred. It is good to report information from sections that present an extended argument with a conclusion strongly consistent with the argument. It is important that reliable references are cited in context and on topic.
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.