AGHSReunions:Reliable sources

From AGHSReunions

Shortcut: WIKI:RS

Overview

While we strive to reference as many reliable, published sources as possible in our encyclopedic and biographical entries, the simple truth is that most of the people and places mentioned in the AGHS Reunions Wiki are not widely written about in reliable, published sources. Most of our information will come from the individuals themselves, their friends and relatives, or classmates. Other sources are likely to include social networking profile information (e.g., facebook.com, myspace.com, classmates.com, etc.), which is not necessarily particularly reliable. That is alright, because such information can serve as a starting point for other editors to expand, enhance, and edit the information into a more complete entry.

It would be unfair to say that "we value quantity over quality" when it comes to information, but it is true that we would rather see every alumnus with at least a very brief biography rather than long lists of names with no additional details.

Instead of worrying about if a source is reliable enough to use, consider the information and ask two questions. First, is the information potentially damaging to the person's reputation or integrity? The more potentially damaging the claim, the more reliable the source must be. Second, does the information "ring true" to what you already know about the person. If you don't know the person, this isn't much help. If you have met the person, then based on everything you know about him or her, does the given information seem likely to be true? The less likely it seems, the more reliable the source must be.

First person sources

What if I am both the source and the subject being discussed?

On the English Wikipedia, you would be considered to have a conflict of interest, and you would not be permitted to make edits about yourself (except for patently false statements, unless they are backed up by reliable sources as defined on Wikipedia).

This is not Wikipedia, so that's not the case here. Even though you are biased and likely to write about yourself with a positive point of view, you are still the best authority on your own life. Just try very hard to write articles about yourself in as neutral and unbiased manner as possible. Think about how an editor of an internationally known encyclopedia might write about you, and try to write in a similarly professional manner. Wiki articles are not social networking profiles. They are reference materials. You are encouraged to create a user page of your own, and that can be as free-form and biased as you like.

When you write content for an article, remember to write in the third person ("He attended" instead of "I attended"). Avoid information that might be interesting to you and your closest friend (e.g., inside jokes, private nicknames, etc.), but the rest of the world would find obscure or uninteresting. Write about the things that people 20 or even 100 years in the future might be interested in knowing. If you find it hard to imagine anything in your life being interesting to anyone 100 years in the future, at least write about things that a new co-worker might find interesting about you.

Another very important thing to remember is that you do not own articles about yourself. You may start an article about yourself if one doesn't already exist or edit an existing article started by someone else. After that, the article is fair game for others to edit, too. Chances are, there will be edits occasionally that may make you unhappy. Remember that this is a collaborative writing environment, and others get to have their say, too. If you can live with the current revision, then do so. If you can't visit the editor's talk page and explain the situation to him or her. Avoid editing the other editor's work without prior discussion, because that often leads to editing wars, which are against our policies. If the information is an outright falsehood, then feel free to remove it, though you should clearly identify the reason in the "edit summary" when you make the change.

What if I am writing about a family member or close friend?

As when writing about yourself, try to avoid a bias that results in a point of view that is unrealistic. Stick to the facts about the person (such as you would find in an encyclopedia article) and avoid editorializing (i.e., adding your own opinions or observations). Remember to focus on things that other people in general might find interesting, not things that only close friends are likely to care about.

What should I write about my...

Whether it's an ex-boyfriend, ex-wife, archenemy, or anyone else that you harbor negative feelings toward, it is probably best if you do not write anything at all. While a generally positive point of view is permitted (and somewhat expected given our policies), biases toward people you dislike can result in a negative point of view. In many cases, a simple turn of phrase can cast a person in a negative light. While that may sound alright with you, it is contrary to our purpose and policies.

We don't want the AGHSReunions Wiki to be an imaginary place populated with happy, wart-free elves and thus useless as a reference source. However, we are far more concerned that something stated maliciously could cause real harm to someone. Though we strongly discourage it, this site is used by employers to verify information, it could be quoted and redistributed in other publications (without warnings about potential inaccuracies), or otherwise be depended upon as reliable information. If you libel someone here, it could profoundly affect their life in a negative way and expose you to legal retaliation by the person.

So, unless you have something to say that is backed up by very reliable sources (as further described below), you are strongly requested to avoid writing anything about a person to whom you feel any animosity. If you ignore that request, be certain to substantiate all claims with reliable, published, third-party sources.

Reliable, published sources

The remainder of this page is based primarily on the English Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. It has been edited somewhat to soften their stance against first-person sources (i.e., writing about yourself), though such a bias may still be detectable.

Please be aware that the Wikipedia standard of Reliable Sources is actually our ideal standard--that is, we would love to see every article fully sourced using reliable, published sources. We are just practical enough to accept that we will never achieve such a level of compliance. So, please try to use reliable sources such as these as often as possible, but accept the fact that such sources will not always be available.

The Wikipedia way

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This information is a guideline, based on relevant Wikipedia policies concerning sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research).

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.

At the AGHSReunions Wiki, we largely agree, however, the subject of an article can act as his or her own source and information provided by the individual should be considered reliable unless conflicting information from an unrelated reliable source indicates otherwise (such as sworn evidence in the proceedings of a trial, a newspaper report from a reputable newspaper, etc.).

What is a reliable source?

See also: w:Wikipedia:Verifiability and w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not necessarily a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy includes suggestions for how to handle questionable sources.

Why use reliable sources?

See also: w:Wikipedia:Verifiability, w:Wikipedia:No original research, w:Wikipedia:Citing sources, and w:Wikipedia:Copyrights

Sources are used:

To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations.

Aspects of reliability

See also: w:Wikipedia:Verifiability

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Shortcut: WIKI:REDFLAG

See also: w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories

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

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people.

Claims of consensus

Claims of consensus need to be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view calls for a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Types of source material

See Wikipedia's policies on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Biographies of living persons

See Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons and compare it to our guidelines

Self-published sources (online and paper)

See Wikipedia's policies on self-published sources (online and paper)

Convenience links

See Wikipedia's guidelines on convenience links

Examples of statistics, subjects, and online sources

See Wikipedia for some examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, Business and Commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

External links

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.