![]() Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. If circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard.īefore doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.Ĭonsensus can change. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.Ĭonsider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.Ĭontext matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. The list is not an independent document it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. ![]() This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.Ĭontext matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources. The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all. Consensus can change, and context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list. This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |