Skip Nav

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Navigation menu

❶When research is paid for by a source that does not have an interest in the results, funder's expectations or preferences were less likely to have influenced the results. Kabul journalist mourns his fallen friends.

Don't want to cite by hand?




Don't hit snooze on the news, Stelter says. Where Trump heard about this conspiracy theory. Editor reacts to seizure of reporter's data. How Bourdain changed my life. Media guidelines for covering suicide responsibly.

What's broken about media? Can it be fixed? The media strategy behind Trump's pardons. Are we in the eye of the Trump hurricane? How the media is covering Melania's absence. A media double standard? Is the media failing Puerto Rico? The journalistic ethics of faking a death. LeDuff takes the media to task over ratings. How to cover Trump's lies.

How the story went viral. Why Pruitt is hiding from the press. Countering Hannity's bid to discredit Mueller. This is Bernstein's 'bottom line' about Trump. How to know when Trump is lying. Are Michael Avenatti's 15 minutes up? Does Giuliani have a press strategy? Trump targeting Amazon -- and the Post? Putting Trump's 'animals' remark in context. Where is Trump getting his info? Conway says White House is hunting for leakers.

Is Trump 'hiding' from the press? Conway, Stelter spar over WH leaks. Don't call him a villain. The impact of Trump's 'credentials' threat.

Trevor Noah explains the '5: Americans remain imprisoned in Iran. Kristof on covering 'invisible America'. NYT writer calls out media's Trump addiction. How to keep up with all of Trump's lies. Three authors address W. Inside Robert Mueller's interview room. Former Charlie Rose assistant speaks out. Kabul journalist mourns his fallen friends. Enough with the lies. How Trump uses and abuses polls. WHCA president discusses her 'regret' about dinner.

Was the press dinner a setback for journalism? Problems piling up at NBC. Sanjay Gupta wrote to Jeff Sessions. Tom Brokaw fires back at accuser. Association president defends Michelle Wolf. Fox News and Trump's parallels on Russia probe. Trump using his bully pulpit to bully. Trump 'hides in plain sight'. Avenatti's prediction about Hannity and Cohen. Trump's shadow chief of staff? From Fox hosts' lips to the president's ears. Denver Post finds unlikely ally in Denver mayor.

Michael Cohen is not very bright. One Trump lie is crystal clear. Stelter on why Trump's spelling errors matter. Trump's angry moods are driving the news cycle. The 'wag the dog' question.

What Dershowitz is telling the president. Will Comey book 'change the narrative? Comey 'out of bounds'. Cracks in the pro-Trump media? WaPo editor responds to Trump's complaints. Is this a metaphor for Trump's presidency? Trump's top source of intel: Baquet says Trump attacks are 'out of control'.

Ex-Sinclair reporter calls out the company. Laura Ingraham ad boycott continues. Atlantic's firing of Williamson is 'bad form'.

Line between Fox News, Trump blurred. Uproar over Sinclair's media-bashing promos. What's it like to be a victim of misinformation. Are ad boycotts the right answer? Differences between journalism and activism. Lessons from 'Roseanne' ratings success. Trump's thinly veiled attack on Wash Post. Trump's best defense from Mueller? Fox host takes vacation in wake of ad boycott. Americans now focus on what they hate. Why Stormy's tell-all interview matters. White House leakers -- or whistleblowers?

Eric Bolling talks Fox, Trump, opioids. Is the gun "intensity gap" closing? Stelter says Trump is the denier-in-chief. Stelter presses Bolling on his Fox News exit. Trump takes on Mueller in tweetstorm. Comey's book is already a best seller. Bernstein's advice to press: The TV to White House pipeline. Is Stormy Daniels more media savvy than Trump? Ben Shapiro talks media bias and gun control. Charlottesville witness suing Alex Jones.

Trump determined to stop Mueller. Jokes or serious threats? How Trump tries to 'produce' his presidency. Stormy Daniels scandal is about money, not sex. He says 'I melted TV down'. How the media is marking Women's History Month. Trump omits black, Hispanic women in poll. How to focus amid a flood of Trump coverage. What it means for the press. Why Jordan Klepper is optimistic about gun reform.

Pro-Trump media's denial about Mueller. A startup wants to 'guard' against 'fake news'. Fox News in denial about Mueller. Comedy Central host gets serious about guns. No, the media does not 'love mass shootings'. Reality intrudes on President Trump's 'fantasyland'. David Hogg meets Dan Rather. Media bashing unites conservatives at CPAC.

Trump misquotes Fox News in tweet. US divided like s Germany. Shooting survivor thanks conspiracy theorists. Gergen cites 'growing' threat to America. Time to rethink how mass shootings are covered? How 'catch and kill' is used to bury news stories.

New leaks about the White House's lies. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news where later reports might be more accurate , and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery.

With regard to historical events, older reports closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.

However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism , and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing. Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field.

Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.

News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces , whether written by the editors of the publication editorials or outside authors op-eds are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author , but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy see junk food news.

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors such as bestseller lists at Amazon usually have at least one of the following problems:. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that 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, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field.

For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets , and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable.

Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums , the Internet Movie Database IMDb , Ancestry. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.

Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

Posts left by readers may never be used as sources see WP: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide.

Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer see WP: 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 the following criteria are met:.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter , Tumblr , and Facebook. Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons.

Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace , not just article space. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources , i.

Reputable tertiary sources , such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia mirrors in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose except as sources on themselves per WP: Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals , widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from and cited to the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source ideally one that includes a citation to the original.

No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. So how exactly do you find these reliable sources? I've cited Huffington and Mashable in papers.

One way to find a great topic for a research paper is to take note of current advances in. Free examples online so long as you are patient and search reliable sources. All of these sources can be classified as either primary or secondary sources. Here's our guide to carrying out great research for first-class essays.

But first, you must get back to the very reason why you are writing the literature review to appreciate its role in completing your research paper.

Use the most up-to-date and reliable source available. Gathering Information for Essays which Require Research: And there's the problem of trying to decide which studies have produced reliable results.

In order to ensure the information is valid, credible, well-written, and of high quality. Researchers can access digitized letters, papers, photographs.

Knowing Whether or Not Information is Reliable. Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter examines the media world -- telling the story. In-depth, research-based articles, books, and book chapters, written by. Make sure you're using credible sources of information to understand your topic-. Identifying Reliable Sources and Citing - Contest to see. The papers and reports you write for your college classes need to be based on. The most important purpose of source documentation in a clinical trial is to.

Students will produce an argumentative research paper that responds to. Online research library with access to books, journals, articles, and. How do you tell the difference between a scholarly source and other sources? Your reader will respect the breadth of your research. Anything that is a primary source — statistics, speeches, research on the.

A credible source is one that delivers factual information that which can be verified without much bias a personal leaning. Reliable sources in psychology are generally those that have been peer-reviewed by other.

The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't. They learn how to. A selection of primary and secondary sources, including both texts and images. These research papers are available for in-house use by library visitors.

By the acronym C. S credibility, accuracy, reliability, sources. Collection of evidence-based medical literature from reliable sources.


Main Topics

Privacy Policy

A. Finding Sources. SUMMARY. Another reason why Wikipedia should not be cited in an academic research paper is that it aims to be like an encyclopedia–a source of reference information, not scholarly research or primary or secondary sources. One must delineate between general reference for general knowledge and scholarly sources for in.

Privacy FAQs

The experts at Elite Editing show you where to find credible sources for your research paper. Finding credible sources online explained.

About Our Ads

It can be frustrating to conduct online research, because internet sources can be quite unreliable. If you find an online article that provides relevant information for your research topic, you should take care to investigate the source to make sure it is valid and reliable. This is an essential. Whenever sources must be used for writing academic papers, such as research papers, reliable sources must be used to validate or support. Nobody likes to write a research paper, but there's this great thing called.

Cookie Info

When using a book, article, report, or Web site for your research, it is important to gauge how reliable the source is. Initial appraisal. Citing sources. When writing a research paper, it is important to cite the sources you used in a way such that a reader could find them. Consumers Home > DES Research > Understanding DES Research > Deciding Whether a Source is Reliable: Deciding Whether a Source is Reliable: Understanding DES Research: Overview: Understanding Scientific Research: is an important consideration when conducting research. The source of funding for a research project may bias the reporting of.