Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources. For example:
For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter ...
This has been incorrectly transformed into an "always" statement in the new ===Unacceptable=== section: "A non-self-published source that verifies the same information is available. These are always preferable." Non-self-published sources are not always preferable. Sometimes the original is the authoritative and therefore best possible source.
[g] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. [1] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Unless the source exercises editorial control, e-prints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published. The above questions can be used to consider the reliability of self-published scientific material. See the policy on self-published sources at WP:SPS. Many of them are also primary sources, which should be treated with ...
Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published. According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics: It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community sometimes accepts videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee of approval with content being unduly self-serving being just one ...
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, particularly when writing about living people.