Preservapedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Preservapedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Preservapedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

All material in Preservapedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

Verifiability is one of Preservapedia's core content policies, along with Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Burden of evidence

For how to write citations, see Preservapedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Preservapedia should not have an article on it. Template:Content policy list

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It is always good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template—write {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed.

Sources

Reliable sources

The word "source", as used in Preservapedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see below). Self-published sources, whether experts or not, may be considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see below).

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Preservapedia and sources that mirror or use it

Articles on Preservapedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Preservapedia to support that same material in Preservapedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Preservapedia citing a source that derives its material from Preservapedia. Preservapedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

Reliable sources and neutrality

All articles must adhere to Preservapedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viePPoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, 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 persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Preservapedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Preservapedia:Neutral point of view.

Access to sources

Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Preservapedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.

Reliable sources noticeboard and IRS guideline

To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Preservapedia:Identifying reliable sources (IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the IRS guideline, or any other guideline, the policy has priority.

See also

• WP:Wikipedia:Core content policies, an essay with a summary of these policies and their brief history
• WP:Wikipedia:List of free online resources
• WP:Wikipedia:Fringe theories, a guideline
• WP:Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles
• WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• WikiProject Resource Exchange
• WP:Wikipedia:When to cite, an essay

Further reading

• Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", WikiEN-l mailing list, July 19, 2006.