Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Wikipedia's Policy on Verifiability, Sourcing and Reliable Information, Study notes of Statistics

Why wikipedia requires sources for added information, the importance of verifiability, and the guidelines for reliable sources. It covers the distinction between synthesis and summary, and the types of sources that are acceptable.

What you will learn

  • What is the importance of verifiability in Wikipedia?
  • What types of sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia?
  • How does Wikipedia distinguish between synthesis and summary?

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

mjforever
mjforever 🇺🇸

4.8

(25)

258 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Referencing on Wikipedia
Why do I have to include a source for information I add to Wikipedia?
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, which gain legitimacy through their brand or the academic
credentials of their authors, Wikipedia must rely on the reliability of its information. Readers
must be assured that the information is not “made up.” One way of reassuring readers is by
pointing them to the ultimate source of the information, where they could verify the
information, if they so chose. Wikipedians are fond of saying that the threshold for inclusion in
the encyclopedia is “verifiability, not truth.” That is, we only include information that has been
published elsewhere by reliable sources that readers can verify themselves. Our policy thus
prohibits the publication of the opinions of individual Wikipedians.
Does every piece of information in a Wikipedia article have to be
sourced?
The more information that is sourced, the more legitimate the article becomes. However, citing
obvious facts that the average adult knows such as “William Shakespeare was a playwright”
leads to overcitation and confusion for the reader. Wikipedia policy (WP:Verifiability) requires
that “anything challenged or likely to be challenged…be attributed to a reliable source” using an
inline citation. In practice, the best Wikipedia articles cite more information than traditional
research papers. When in doubt, cite! All quotations, statistics, contentious statements about
living people, and extraordinary claims, must be cited. Statements claiming that a person was
“the first” or “best,” for example, demand a source. Thus, while the statement “William
Shakespeare was a playwright” does not require a citation, the statement “William Shakespeare
is the best playwright in the English language” does. A good rule of thumb to follow is that
every paragraph should have at least one citation.
What counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia?
Reliable sources are, as Wikipedia’s guideline on sourcing explains, “third-party, published
sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Choosing sources for an article
largely depends on the topic. As the guideline points out, “the appropriateness of any source
depends on the context.” However, the best sources are generally academic, peer-reviewed
publications, followed by university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing
houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Any electronic media that meet the
same stringent criteria may also be used.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Wikipedia's Policy on Verifiability, Sourcing and Reliable Information and more Study notes Statistics in PDF only on Docsity!

Referencing on Wikipedia

Why do I have to include a source for information I add to Wikipedia?

Unlike traditional encyclopedias, which gain legitimacy through their brand or the academic credentials of their authors, Wikipedia must rely on the reliability of its information. Readers must be assured that the information is not “made up.” One way of reassuring readers is by pointing them to the ultimate source of the information, where they could verify the information, if they so chose. Wikipedians are fond of saying that the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia is “verifiability, not truth.” That is, we only include information that has been published elsewhere by reliable sources that readers can verify themselves. Our policy thus prohibits the publication of the opinions of individual Wikipedians.

Does every piece of information in a Wikipedia article have to be

sourced?

The more information that is sourced, the more legitimate the article becomes. However, citing obvious facts that the average adult knows such as “William Shakespeare was a playwright” leads to overcitation and confusion for the reader. Wikipedia policy (WP:Verifiability) requires that “anything challenged or likely to be challenged…be attributed to a reliable source” using an inline citation. In practice, the best Wikipedia articles cite more information than traditional research papers. When in doubt, cite! All quotations, statistics, contentious statements about living people, and extraordinary claims, must be cited. Statements claiming that a person was “the first” or “best,” for example, demand a source. Thus, while the statement “William Shakespeare was a playwright” does not require a citation, the statement “William Shakespeare is the best playwright in the English language” does. A good rule of thumb to follow is that every paragraph should have at least one citation.

What counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

Reliable sources are, as Wikipedia’s guideline on sourcing explains, “third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Choosing sources for an article largely depends on the topic. As the guideline points out, “the appropriateness of any source depends on the context.” However, the best sources are generally academic, peer-reviewed publications, followed by university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Any electronic media that meet the same stringent criteria may also be used.

In general, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary sources provide analysis of primary sources and it is this analysis that Wikipedia offers to the world. Primary sources, which are accounts very close in time to the event and often written by actors in them, should be used sparingly and care should be taken to avoid interpretation and analyses. As a general rule of thumb, any primary source material must also have a secondary source to interpret the material for the reader. Tertiary sources are compendia such as encyclopedias that summarize secondary sources and are thus sometimes useful as a broad summary of a topic.

While there are vast treasure troves of information on which to draw for Wikipedia articles, there are also many sources that are inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. For example, anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. There are some exceptions to this, but it is best to begin by looking elsewhere for the information.

Can I combine information from more than one source?

Wikipedia has a policy of “No original research,” meaning that it only publishes what has already been published and that it does not synthesize already published work. To write an article about a topic, however, one must summarize the existing information—editors must learn the difference between synthesis and summary. Combining material from multiple sources to imply a new conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources cited is synthesis. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. For example,

Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.