Editing Wikipedia 2197:Verifiability

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]].

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.

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]].
==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>

{{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.

{{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.

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]].
==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===
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)
*The publisher of the work (for example, [[Random House]] or [[Cambridge University Press]])
All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]], published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been {{strong|published}}, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".<ref>This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.</ref> {{strong|Unpublished}} materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|content related to living people]] or [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|medicine]].

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
*University-level textbooks
*Books published by respected publishing houses
*Magazines
*Mainstream newspapers
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|Self-published sources]] below.

=== 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==
{{redirect|WP:NOTRELIABLE|Wikipedia's own reliability|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source}} {{see also|Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources}} {{policy shortcut|WP:NOTRELIABLE|WP:NOTRS|WP:QS}}
===Questionable sources===
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on ''themselves'', such as in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

[[Predatory open access]] journals are also questionable, due to lack of effective peer-review.
===Self-published sources===<!-- Be aware, when editing the section title, that there is a policy shortcut to this. --> <!-- 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:SPS|WP:SELFPUB|WP:SELFPUBLISH|WP:BLOGS}} {{further|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources|Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies|Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works}}

Anyone can create a [[personal web page]], [[self-publishing|self-publish]] a book, or [[WP:Expert editors|claim to be an expert]]. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from [[#Newspaper and magazine blogs|newsblogs]], above), [[content farm]]s, [[Internet forum]] postings, and [[social media]] postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established [[subject-matter expert]], whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by [[WP:RS|reliable]], independent publications.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL" /> 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.<ref>Self-published material is characterized by the ''lack of independent reviewers'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral [[manifesto]]s:
*The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160510203400/https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html University of California, Berkeley, library] states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
*[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 ===
{{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]];
#it does not involve claims about third parties;
#it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
#there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
#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 ===
{{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}}

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>

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 ==
===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]]).
===Non-English sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:NOENG|WP:NONENG}} {{see also|Wikipedia:Translators available|Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions}}
====Citing====
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the [[English Wikipedia]]. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.<ref name="Courtesy">When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.</ref> (See [[Template:Request quotation]].)
====Quoting====
If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.

In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|violate copyright]]; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Text|fair-use guideline]].
==Other issues==
===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===
{{shortcut|WP:VNOT|WP:ONUS}} {{redirect|WP:ONUS|the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability|WP:BURDEN}} {{See also|WP:UNDUE|WP:PAGEDECIDE|WP:PRESERVE|WP:SUMMARY|WP:IINFO}} While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or [[WP:PRESERVE|presented instead in a different article]]. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
===Tagging a sentence, section, or article===
{{further|Wikipedia:Citation needed|Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles}} {{shortcut|WP:FAIL|WP:FAILV|WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION}} If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template by writing {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. There are other templates for tagging sections or entire articles [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources|here]]. You can also leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|material about living and recently deceased people]]. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.
===Exceptional claims require exceptional sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG|WP:EXCEPTIONAL|WP:EXTRAORDINARY|WP:ECREE}} {{see also|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}} Any exceptional claim requires {{em|multiple}} high-quality sources.<ref>[[David Hume|Hume, David]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=H1rKYw9SnTgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86 ''An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding''], Forgotten Books, 1984, pp. 82, 86; first published in 1748 as ''Philosophical enquiries concerning human Understanding'', (or the Oxford 1894 edition {{OL|7067396M}} at para. 91) "A wise man{{nbsp}}... proportions his belief to the evidence{{nbsp}}... That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior." In the 18th century, [[Pierre-Simon Laplace]] reformulated the idea as "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." [[Marcello Truzzi]] recast it again, in 1978, as "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." [[Carl Sagan]], finally, popularized the concept broadly as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in 1980 on ''[[Cosmos: A Personal Voyage]]''; this was the formulation originally used on Wikipedia.</ref> [[Red flag (idiom)|Warnings (red flags)]] that should prompt extra caution include:
*Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
*Challenged claims that are supported purely by [[WP:Primary|primary]] or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
*Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
*Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] to silence them.
==Verifiability and other principles==
===Copyright and plagiarism===
{{further|Wikipedia:Copyright|Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution|Wikipedia:CITE#In-text attribution}} {{policy shortcut|WP:OWNWORDS|WP:YTCOPYRIGHT}} Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]], and [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works|contributors' rights and obligations]]. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered [[contributory copyright infringement]]. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. ''This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as [[Scribd]] or [[YouTube]], where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.''
===Neutrality===
{{further|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view}} Even when information is cited to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], you must present it with a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV). Articles should be based on [[WP:BESTSOURCES|thorough research of sources]]. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in [[WP:UNDUE|rough proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]]: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]]. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are ''not'' neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.
===Notability===
{{further|Wikipedia:Notability}} If no [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:Independent sources|independent]] sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not [[WP:Notability|notable]]).
===Original research===
{{further|Wikipedia:No original research}} The [[WP:NOR|no original research]] policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
#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.
==See also==<!-- {{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}} -->
===Guidelines===
*[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]]
*[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]]
===Information pages===
{{div col}}
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|Wikipedia is not a reliable source]]
*[[Wikipedia:Core content policies|Core content policies]]
*[[Help:How to mine a source|How to mine a source]]
*[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|Identifying and using independent sources]]
*[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources|Identifying and using primary sources]]
*[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works|Identifying and using self-published works]]
*[[Wikipedia:Video links|Video links]]
*[[Wikipedia:When to cite|When to cite]]
{{div col end}}
===Resources===
{{div col}}
*[[Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts|Improving referencing efforts]]
*[[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles|Template messages/Sources of articles]]
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability|WikiProject Reliability]]
*[[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library|The Wikipedia Library]]
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]
{{div col end}}
===Essays===
{{div col}}
*[[Wikipedia:Citation clutter|Citation clutter]]
*[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources|Identifying and using tertiary sources]]
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|Verifiability, not truth]]
*[[Wikipedia:Truth requires sources|Truth requires sources]]
{{div col end}}
==Notes==
{{Reflist}}
==Further reading==
*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}}

<references />