Wikipedia:Attribution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:10, 10 November 2006

Shortcut: WP:ATT WP:ATTRIBUTE WP:SOURCE

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. All claims published by Wikipedia must be attributable to a published source that is reliable for the claim being sourced. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material can be attributed to such a source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a published source, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. That is, content on Wikipedia must be both attributable and written from a neutral point of view. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

Key principles

Wikipedia does not publish original research.

Original research refers to material for which no reliable published source can be found; that is, it refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. The analysis or synthesis of published material to produce unpublished interpretations or to advance a position counts as original research.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions.

Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations; the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to retain the material. Material lacking attribution may be removed, but use common sense: that Paris is the capital of France needs no source. This policy should never be used to cause disruption by prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found. The exception to this is when dealing with claims about living persons, where unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately and not be moved to talk pages.

Building an encyclopedia requires the use of good editorial judgment and common sense.

Formal rules are not a substitute for good judgment and intellectual honesty. Formal rules cannot always determine whether material is reliable, notable, or relevant to a particular topic. In rare cases, the best source for a particular article may be one that this policy would describe as "questionable." (See below.) Editors are most likely to encounter these exceptions in the areas of popular culture and fiction, where professional sources offer shallow coverage, or none, than for established subjects where professional sources dominate. In these cases, and where there is consensus that the sources in question are accurate, trustworthy, and reasonably free of bias, such a source may be used. If reasonable objections are raised about the use of a questionable source, it should not be used. Questionable sources must never be used to support biographical claims about living persons, or to support fringe theories or marginal positions in the areas of history, politics, current affairs, science, religion, and other academic disciplines.

No original research

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.
Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

Unpublished synthesis of published material

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. Avoid analyzing sources in a way that produces a new idea or argument. Even if A and B are published by reliable sources, it is inappropriate to combine A and B to conclude a new position C. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable if and only if a reliable source has published that precise argument in relation to the topic of the article. See the FAQ page for an example.

What is not original research

It is legitimate to make simple mathematical calculations or straightforward logical deductions based on properly attributed, relevant data that neither change the significance of that data nor require additional assumptions or interpretation beyond what is in the source. If a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election, it is not original research to calculate a percentage, so long as it is a simple calculation and the original numbers the source offers accompany it. Simple deductions of this nature are not allowed if they serve to advance a position, or if deductions are made based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand. In such cases, the deductions count as original research.

Using questionable or self-published sources

Some sources pose special difficulties:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist; are promotional in nature; or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves.

A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages on USENET and Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

Exceptions

There are two exceptions:

1. Questionable or self-published sources in articles about their authors.

Material from questionable or self-published sources may be used as primary source material in articles about that source's author. The material

must be relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
should not be contentious or unduly self-serving;
must not be used to support claims about topics not directly related to the source or about third parties.

Articles about such sources should not — even on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's work — repeat potentially defamatory claims about third parties, unless the claim has also been published by reliable sources, which should be cited.

2. Professional self-published sources: When a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, produces self-published material, we can rely on it so long as material produced by the writer would normally be regarded as a reliable source. However, exercise caution: if the material is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. If there is reasonable doubt about the reliability of the source, or the relevance of the material to the subject matter, err on the side of caution and don't use it.

Biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity because they could negatively affect someone's life and have legal consequences. Remove unattributed, contentious biographical material immediately if it concerns a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. ^[1]^[2] This applies to material in biographies of living persons and to material about living persons in other articles, talk pages, and user pages.

How to cite

Further information and examples: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citations quick reference

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by an inline citation, written as a footnote, Harvard reference, or embedded link.

It is often appropriate to include prose attributions for sources. This is the attribution, within an article's text, of a claim to a specific source; for example, "According to The New York Times, ..." Editors should use common sense when attributing positions within the text, taking care not to cast unnecessary doubt on a position. For example, "According to Jane Doe, she was born in 1965", suggests that her account may not be reliable.

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page; or tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template; or tag the whole article by adding the {{not verified}} template. Absurd claims and original research should be removed rather than tagged; contentious claims about living persons must be removed immediately.

Citing yourself

.

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.

Language

English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents in terms of quality and relevance. Published translations are generally preferred to editors translating material on their own; when editors do use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.

Sources and notes

^ Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006.
^ "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 19, 2006.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{policy in a nutshell|All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed.}}
-Wikipedia is an '''encyclopedia''', not a publisher of original thought. All claims published by Wikipedia must be '''attributable''' to a published source that is reliable ''for the claim being sourced''. . The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material '''can be attributed''' to such a source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.
+Wikipedia is an '''encyclopedia''', not a publisher of original thought. All claims published by Wikipedia must be '''attributable''' to a published source that is reliable ''for the claim being sourced''. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material '''can be attributed''' to such a source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.
 Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a published source, in practice not all material ''is'' attributed. Editors should provide attribution for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.