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:
A secondary source is significantly separated from these primary sources. A reporter's notebook is an (unpublished) primary source, and the news story published by the reporter based on those notes is also a primary source. This is because the sole purpose of the notes in the notebook is to produce the news report.
{{Self-published source|date=December 2024}} This is an inline citation annotation template used inside <ref>...</ref> to flag a source as self-published and thus potentially unreliable, per WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources (WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources and WP:Neutral point of view are also relevant, but the link produced by the template goes to that section at ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
If the source given is self-published, use {{self-published inline}}. This template also has special features for: Citing self-published material by recognized experts, which is sometimes permissible for limited purposes. Citing biography subjects' non-controversial statements about themselves, which can also be appropriate within certain limits.
This template is for when multiple sources used in an article are self-published. Self-published means that the source was written and published by the same person or organization (e.g., a personal or corporate website, a print-to-order book, a company newsletter, a press release, a personally made YouTube video) rather than by separate authors and publishers (e.g., news media websites or ...
Previous: A non-self-published source that verifies the same information is usually preferred to a non-self-published one. If it is not clear which source is better, they can both be cited. New: A non-self-published source that verifies the same information is usually preferred to a self-published one. If it is not clear which source is better ...
If the work is self-published, this is a very important fact about potential reliability of the source, and needs to be specified; no consensus exists for the exact value of |publisher= in such a case, but some printed style guides suggest "author", while many Wikipedia editors have used "self-published" for increased clarity.