විකිපීඩියා:විශ්වාසනීය මූලාශ්‍ර

"WP:Reliability" and "WP:RS" redirect here. For other uses, see the WikiProject (disambiguation).

community input on the reliability of a source සඳහා, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard බලන්න

a list of frequently discussed sources සඳහා, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources බලන්න

Wikipedia policy on reliable sources සඳහා, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources බලන්න

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

දළ විශ්ලේෂණය

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Good research

මූලාශ්‍ර විශ්වසනීයත්වය වර්ණාවලියක් මත වැටේ: කිසිම මූලාශ්‍රයක් සෑම දෙයක් සඳහාම 'සැමවිටම විශ්වාසදායක' හෝ 'සැමවිටම විශ්වාස කළ නොහැකි' නොවේ. කෙසේ වෙතත්, සමහර මූලාශ්‍ර ලබා දී ඇති ප්‍රකාශයක් සඳහා ශක්තිමත් හෝ දුර්වල සහයක් සපයයි. එක් එක් ප්‍රකාශය සඳහා භාවිත කළ හැකි සහ නුසුදුසු මූලාශ්‍ර අතර රේඛාව ඇඳීමට සංස්කාරකවරුන් ඔවුන්ගේ විනිශ්චය භාවිත කළ යුතුය.

ලිපි පදනම් විය යුත්තේ, විශ්වසනීය හා ස්වාධීන, කරුණු පරීක්ෂා කිරීම සහ නිරවද්‍යතාවය සඳහා කීර්තියක් ඇති ප්‍රකාශිත මූලාශ්‍ර මතය. මෙයින් අදහස් කරන්නේ අප ප්‍රකාශනය කරන්නේ විශ්වාසදායක කතුවරුන්ගේ විශ්ලේෂණ, අදහස් සහ අදහස් පමණක් මිස ප්‍රාථමික මූලාශ්‍ර ද්‍රව්‍ය කියවා අර්ථකථනය කළ විකිපීඩියාවන්ගේ ඒවා නොවන බවයි. පහත උදාහරණ මගින් විශ්වාසනීය මූලාශ්‍ර සහ මූලාශ්‍ර විශ්වසනීයත්වය පිළිබඳ ගැටළු වර්ග කිහිපයක් පමණක් ආවරණය වන අතර ඒවා සම්පූර්ණ කිරීමට අදහස් නොකෙරේ. නිසි මූලාශ්‍රය සැමවිටම සන්දර්භය මත රඳා පවතී; සාමාන්‍ය බුද්ධිය සහ කතුවැකි විනිශ්චය ක්‍රියාවලියේ නැතුවම බැරි කොටසකි.

මූලාශ්‍රයක අර්ථ දැක්වීම

මූලාශ්‍රය යනු ද්‍රව්‍ය පැමිණෙන්නේ කොතැනින්ද යන්නයි. උදාහරණයක් ලෙස, මූලාශ්රයක් පොතක් හෝ වෙබ් පිටුවක් විය හැකිය. මූලාශ්‍රයක් එය ආධාර කිරීමට අදහස් කරන ද්‍රව්‍ය සඳහා විශ්වාසදායක හෝ විශ්වාස කළ නොහැකි විය හැකිය. ප්‍රකාශනය නොකළ පාඨ සහ සංස්කාරකවරයාගේ පෞද්ගලික අත්දැකීම වැනි සමහර මූලාශ්‍ර තහනම් කර ඇත.

සංස්කාරකවරුන් විකිපීඩියාවේ උපුටා දක්වන මූලාශ්‍ර ගැන කතා කරන විට, ඔවුන් මෙම සංකල්ප තුනෙන් ඕනෑම එකක් ගැන සඳහන් කරනවා විය හැකිය:

• වැඩ කොටසම (ලිපිය, පොත)
• කෘතියේ නිර්මාතෘ (ලේඛකයා, මාධ්‍යවේදියා)
• කෘතියේ ප්‍රකාශකයා (උදාහරණයක් ලෙස, Random House හෝ Cambridge University Press)

මේ තුනෙන් ඕනෑම දෙයක් විශ්වසනීයත්වයට බලපෑ හැකිය. විශ්වාසදායක මූලාශ්‍ර විශ්වාසනීය ප්‍රකාශන ක්‍රියාවලියක් සහිත ප්‍රකාශන ද්‍රව්‍ය විය හැකිය, විෂයට අදාළව අධිකාරී ලෙස සලකනු ලබන කතුවරුන් හෝ දෙකම. මෙම සුදුසුකම් අනෙක් පුද්ගලයින්ට පෙන්නුම් කළ යුතුය.

ප්‍රකාශිත අර්ථ දැක්වීම

ප්‍රකාශය කරන ලද යන්නෙන් අදහස් වන්නේ, විකිපීඩියාවේ අරමුණු සඳහා, යම් ආකාරයකින් මහජනතාවට ලබා ගත හැකි ඕනෑම මූලාශ්‍රයයි. මෙම පදය සාම්ප්‍රදායික මුද්‍රිත ආකෘතියෙන් හෝ අන්තර්ජාලයෙන් පෙළ ද්‍රව්‍ය සමඟ බහුලව සම්බන්ධ වේ; කෙසේ වෙතත්, ශ්‍රව්‍ය, දෘශ්‍ය, සහ බහුමාධ්‍ය ද්‍රව්‍ය පටිගත කර පසුව විකාශනය කරන ලද, බෙදා හරින ලද හෝ පිළිගත් පාර්ශ්වයක් විසින් සංරක්ෂණය කර ඇති අතර ඒවා විශ්වාසදායක මූලාශ්‍ර ලෙස සැලකීමට අවශ්‍ය නිර්ණායක ද සපුරාලිය හැකිය. පෙළ මෙන්, මාධ්‍ය විශ්වාසදායක මූලාශ්‍රයකින් නිෂ්පාදනය කළ යුතු අතර නිසි ලෙස උපුටා දැක්විය යුතුය. අතිරේකව, මාධ්‍යයේ සංරක්ෂිත පිටපතක් තිබිය යුතුය. සංරක්ෂිත පිටපත අන්තර්ජාලය හරහා ප්‍රවේශ වීම සඳහා එය පහසු ය, නමුත් කිසිසේත් අවශ්‍ය නොවේ.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support (See WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation) the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Age matters

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that 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.

Some types of sources

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, සහ Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

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, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. 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.

Scholarship

• Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
• Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
• Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• Predatory journals – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see predatory journals). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. For medical content, more guidance is available at WP:MEDRS.

• Preprints – Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv or bioRxiv, are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS. However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. 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 (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) 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).

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.
• Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit 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 reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

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, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources

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, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. 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 this guideline requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

Sponsored content

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Covert advertising

Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal, being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number, or "Suppl." in a reference. However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources

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 sources 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. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

User-generated content

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, and Wikipedia (self referencing).

Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable when summarizing experts; otherwise, their ratings based on the opinions of their users are not.

In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or 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 the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
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 Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources

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.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

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:SELFSOURCE).

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.

When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, 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, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Quotations

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations

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.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Usage by other sources

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information, such as distrusting anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports, as well as reports attributed to other news media; seeking multiple sources; seeking eyewitness reports; being wary of potential hoaxes, and being skeptical of reports of possible additional attackers in mass shootings.

Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources § Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources.

When editing a current-event article, keep in mind recentism bias.

The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template can be added to the top of articles about a breaking-news event to alert readers to the fact that some information in the article may be inaccurate, and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news; if they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, but to no significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

Headlines

News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

මේවාත් බලන්න: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources සහ Wikipedia:Spam blacklist

A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.

A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.

Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.

See also

Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including

• {{notability}} – adds:
• {{citation needed}} – adds:
• {{unreliable source?}} – adds:

Policies and guidelines

• Citing sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Fringe theories
• No original research

Information pages

• Common knowledge
• External links/Perennial websites
• How to mine a source
• Inaccuracy § Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Offline sources
• Reliable sources/Cost
• Video links

Locating reliable sources

මේවාත් බලන්න: Help:Find sources සහ Wikipedia:Advanced source searching

• Free English newspaper sources
• Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a list of frequently discussed sources
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• List of online newspaper archives
• The Wikipedia Library, a program for accessing paywalled resources free of charge
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

Essays

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Essay directory#Verifiability and sources

• Articles on sources
• Applying reliability guidelines
• Cherrypicking
• Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources
• Dictionaries as sources
• Don't "teach the controversy" (phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)
• Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy
• Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Identifying reliable sources (science)
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)
• Reliable source examples
• Reliable sources checklist (provides a ref-vetting method)
• Potentially unreliable sources
• Tertiary-source fallacy
• Vanity and predatory publishing
• Wikipedia clones

Other

• Change detection and notification
• Current science and technology sources
• News sources
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Reliable sources quiz
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – Signpost article
• WikiProject Reliability

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
• Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
• "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
• How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare