Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability - Revision history

Anabellebel at 17:34, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T17:34:42Z

Anabellebel at 17:32, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T17:32:32Z

Show changes

Anabellebel: /* Responsibility for providing citations */

2021-08-09T17:14:13Z

Responsibility for providing citations

Anabellebel at 17:12, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T17:12:35Z

Anabellebel at 16:15, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T16:15:29Z

Anabellebel at 14:20, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T14:20:11Z

Show changes

Anabellebel: /* Newspaper and magazine blogs */

2021-08-09T14:15:43Z

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Anabellebel: /* Newspaper and magazine blogs */

2021-08-09T14:15:27Z

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Anabellebel at 14:14, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T14:14:48Z

Anabellebel at 14:08, 9 August 2021

2021-08-09T14:08:45Z

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 {{anchor|Burden|Burden of evidence}}
-'''All content must be verifiable or identified as a primary source information'''. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.</ref> the contribution.<ref>Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.</ref>
+'''All content must be verifiable or identified as a primary source information'''. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], etc.</ref> the contribution.<ref>Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.</ref>
 {{anchor|Unsourced}}
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 [[Predatory open access]] journals are also questionable, due to lack of effective peer-review.
 ===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it ===
-Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a [[WP:UGC|user-generated source]]. Also, do not use websites that [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|mirror Wikipedia content]] or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Ole Bjørn|last1=Rekdal|title=Academic urban legends|journal=[[Social Studies of Science]]|date=1 August 2014|issn=0306-3127|pages=638–654|volume=44|issue=4|doi=10.1177/0306312714535679|pmc=4232290}}</ref>
+Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a [[WP:UGC|user-generated source]]. Also, do not use websites that [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|mirror Wikipedia content]] or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.
 An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Any such use should avoid [[Wikipedia:WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]] on Wikipedia's role or views, and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid|inappropriate self-reference]]. The article text should make it clear the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is aware of the potential bias.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0" /> the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. If you think the material is verifiable, [[Wikipedia:WP:PRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before considering whether to remove or tag it.
-Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups|applies to groups]].
+Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal_persons_and_groups|applies to groups]].
 ==Reliable sources==<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->
 ===What counts as a reliable source===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In the English Wikipedia, '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a [[Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source|reliable source]]. Wikipedia does not publish [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.<ref>This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is {{strong|verifiability, not truth}}". See the essay, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]].</ref> If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|due weight]].
+In the English Wikipedia, '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a [[Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source|reliable source]]. Although the publication of primary source work is permitted on Wikipedia 2197, certain rules determine what can and cannot be published. Content still is determined mainly by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.<ref>This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is {{strong|verifiability, not truth}}". See the essay, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]].</ref> If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|due weight]].
-All material in [[Wikipedia:Mainspace|Wikipedia mainspace]], including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.</ref> the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about living people]] that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
+'''Information can only be mentioned if readers can clearly identify its source, for example if it is observable in the video game ''The Sum'', if it has already been published or if it is clearly stated that it is a personal interpretation. Contributors must provide such a source for all information that is or may be disputed.''' Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about living people]] that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
-For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]]. Verifiability, [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright policy]].
+For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]]. [[Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand those key points.
 ==Responsibility for providing citations==
 {{anchor|Burden|Burden of evidence}}
-All content must be verifiable. The '''burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0" /> the contribution.<ref>Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.</ref>
+'''All content must be verifiable or identified as a primary source information'''. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.</ref> the contribution.<ref>Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.</ref>
 {{anchor|Unsourced}}
-Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is {{strong|challenged or likely to be challenged}}, to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s){{snd}}though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.
+Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is {{strong|challenged or likely to be challenged}}, to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s) sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Citing sources|Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.
 {{anchor|Challenge}}
-Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0" /> the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step.<ref>It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.</ref> When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.<ref>When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.</ref> If you think the material is verifiable, [[WP:PRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before considering whether to remove or tag it.
+Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0" /> the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. If you think the material is verifiable, [[Wikipedia:WP:PRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before considering whether to remove or tag it.
-Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups|applies to groups]].
+Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups|applies to groups]].
 ==Reliable sources==<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->
 ===What counts as a reliable source===

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:15, 9 August 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In the English Wikipedia, '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a [[#What counts as a reliable source\|reliable source]]. Wikipedia does not publish [[Wikipedia:No original research\|original research]]. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.<ref>This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is {{strong\|verifiability, not truth}}". See the essay, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]].</ref> If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutral point of view]] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight\|due weight]].	+	In the English Wikipedia, '''verifiability''' means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a [[Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source\|reliable source]]. Wikipedia does not publish [[Wikipedia:No original research\|original research]]. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.<ref>This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is {{strong\|verifiability, not truth}}". See the essay, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]].</ref> If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view\|neutral point of view]] and present what the various sources say, giving each side its [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight\|due weight]].

	All material in [[Wikipedia:Mainspace\|Wikipedia mainspace]], including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an [[WP:INCITE\|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly\|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link\|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section\|Citations}}, etc.</ref> the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons\|about living people]] that is unsourced or poorly sourced.		All material in [[Wikipedia:Mainspace\|Wikipedia mainspace]], including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an [[WP:INCITE\|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports<ref name=":0">A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is [[wikt:directly\|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link\|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section\|Citations}}, etc.</ref> the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons\|about living people]] that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in ''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Search engine test]]''.
 ===Newspaper and magazine blogs===
-{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}} Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] they call [[blog]]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em|not}} reliable sources, see [[#Self-published sources]] below.
+{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}} Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] they call [[blog]]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em|not}} reliable sources, see [[#Self-published sources|Self-published sources]] below.
 === Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline===

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in ''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Search engine test]]''.
 ===Newspaper and magazine blogs===
-{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}} Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] they call [[blog]]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote{{nbsp}}..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em|not}} reliable sources, see {{section link||Self-published sources}} below.
+{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}} Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] they call [[blog]]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are {{em|not}} reliable sources, see ''Self-published sources'' below.
-===Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline===
+=== Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline===
 {{further|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]], which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular {{em|types}} of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.
 ==Sources that are usually not reliable==
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 *[https://web.archive.org/web/20111005165358/http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ Princeton University] offers this understanding in its publication, ''Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011)'': "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
 *The [https://web.archive.org/web/20060907142339/http://library.stkate.edu/pdf/citeChicago.pdf Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition] states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."</ref> '''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.
-===Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves===
+===Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves ===
 {{redirect|WP:SOCIALMEDIA|the policy on what Wikipedia is not|WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK}} {{redirect|WP:TWITTER|the external links essay|WP:Twitter-EL|template for citing tweets|Template:Cite tweet}} <!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) --> {{policy shortcut|WP:ABOUTSELF|WP:TWEET|WP:TWITTER|WP:SOCIALMEDIA}}
 [[WP:SELFPUBLISH|Self-published]] and [[WP:QS|questionable]] sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
-#the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional claim]];
+# the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional claim]];
 #it does not involve claims about third parties;
 #it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 #the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as [[Twitter]], [[Tumblr]], [[LinkedIn]], [[Reddit]], and [[Facebook]].
-===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it===
+===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it ===
 {{policy shortcut|WP:CIRC|WP:CIRCULAR|WP:REFLOOP}} {{Redirect|WP:CIRCULAR|links on a page that redirect back to the same page|WP:SELFRED}} {{See also|WP:COPYWITHIN|Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents|Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia}}
@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a [[primary source]] in this case, and may be used following the [[wp:PRIMARY|policy for primary sources]]. Any such use should avoid [[WP:OR|original research]], [[WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]] on Wikipedia's role or views, and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid|inappropriate self-reference]]. The article text should make it clear the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is aware of the potential bias.
-==Accessibility==
+==Accessibility ==
 ===Access to sources===
 {{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL|WP:SOURCEACCESS}} {{see also|Wikipedia:Offline sources|Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost}} Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]).
@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 #All material in Wikipedia articles must be ''attributable'' to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
 #Sources must support the material clearly and directly: [[WP:SYN|drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position]] is prohibited by the NOR policy.<ref name="Courtesy" />
-#Base articles largely on reliable [[secondary source]]s. While [[primary source]]s are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]] section of the NOR policy, and the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse of primary sources|Misuse of primary sources]] section of the BLP policy.
+# Base articles largely on reliable [[secondary source]]s. While [[primary source]]s are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]] section of the NOR policy, and the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse of primary sources|Misuse of primary sources]] section of the BLP policy.
 ==See also==<!-- {{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}} -->
 ===Guidelines===
@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 *Wales, Jimmy. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "Insist on sources"], WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.
 {{Wikipedia referencing|state=expanded}} {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==Reliable sources==<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->
 ===What counts as a reliable source===
-{{further|Wikipedia:Reliable sources}} The word "source" {{em|when citing sources on Wikipedia}} has three related meanings:
+The word "source" {{em|when citing sources on Wikipedia}} has three related meanings:
 *The work itself (the article, book)
 *The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)