Bahaikipedia:Reliable sources
From Bahaikipedia
Bahaikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Bahaikipedia:Verifiability, Bahaikipedia:No original research, and Bahaikipedia:Bahá’í point of view.
Bahaikipedia: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 at all than to have information without a source. See that page for more information about Bahaikipedia's policy on sourcing.
Contents |
[edit] What is a reliable source?
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.
[edit] Why use reliable sources?
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. See Bahaikipedia:Copyrights.
Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Bahaikipedia standards for verifiability and originality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.
If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Bahaikipedia.
[edit] Aspects of reliability
[edit] Scholarly sources
Bahaikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. Such sources are preferred in subject areas where scholarly work is commonly performed, such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, but may not be available in other subject areas (such as topics related to popular culture). Bahaikipedia articles should represent all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, so long as the sources are reliable.
[edit] Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
- See also: Bahaikipedia: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 biographies of living people.
[edit] Claims of consensus
Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
[edit] Types of source material
[edit] Biographies of living persons
[edit] Self-published sources (online and paper)
[edit] Generally unacceptable sources
Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Bahaikipedia:
- An anonymous source is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in Bahaikipedia, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Bahaikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source. Similarly, anonymous sources may be used as secondary sources in historical contexts, as in Beowulf or other, older texts on Bahaikipedia, but we have to cite a reliable source reporting on the primary source (e.g. a history-related book).
- An unpublished source is one that is not publicly available, or that has been distributed only through anonymous channels or forums, and for which a publisher cannot be identified. Unpublished sources may never be used as sources on Bahaikipedia.
- An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.
- A confidential source, i.e. those sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority, as the original cannot be used to validate the reference.
- A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Wikis are generally also questionable sources because anyone can add to them and there is no guarantee that the information is verified. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy.
- A self-published source is material, online or in print, that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. The expression "self-published source" may also refer to the author of the material. Personal websites, blogs, Bahaikipedia, and messages on USENET and Internet message boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no independent entity stands between the author and publication; the material may not have been subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is usually not acceptable as a reliable source, with some exceptions.
[edit] See also
[edit] 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.
