Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Verifiability and reliable sources
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Verifiability)
 | This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Essay directory and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
 | Nutshells in a nutshell: This is an essays in a nutshell page. Essays in a nutshell is a navigation aid that summarizes the gist of Wikipedia's essays. Essays can also be navigated via categories, navigation templates, or Special:Search. For more information on searching for essays, see Wikipedia:About essay searching. |
| Essay | In a nutshell | Shortcuts | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 sources | A term that relates to the use of sources that cannot strictly be categorised as being either primary sources or secondary sources. | WP:1.5 | Low |
| Allowing forensic crime data | If properly used, forensic crime data can be cited as a primary source. | WP:FORENSIC WP:CRIMEDATA |
|
| Articles with a single source | If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns. | WP:ONESOURCE WP:1R |
Low |
| Assessing reliability | There are a number of ways in which you, as a reader, can assess the reliability of a given article. | WP:AREL | Low |
| Attribution needed | When perspectives and opinions in Wikipedia are asserted without stating whose they are, an [attribution needed] flag may be inserted. | ||
| Avoiding untrue text in articles | Sources should not only be verifiable and reliable, but also "true," in the sense that they accurately represent current academic consensus. | WP:TRUTHFUL WP:UNTRUE WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY |
Unranked |
| Baby and bathwater | Reliable sources are not infallible. | Unranked | |
| Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability | Be sure of the reliability of sources that were created for children or adult new readers and of abridged large-print media. | WP:CHILDRENSLIT WP:CHILDRENLIT WP:ADULTNEWREADER WP:LARGEPRINT WP:ABRIDGED WP:ABRIDGEMENT |
|
| Citations on new phenomena | Reliable sources on new subcultures may be difficult to come by. | Low | |
| Citation overkill | When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par sources. | WP:CITEKILL WP:CITECLUTTER WP:OVERCITE WP:OVERREF |
High |
| Don't teach the controversy | (That doesn't mean what you think it means.) Instead, neutrally document the conflict. | WP:DTTC WP:NDTC |
|
| Fruit of the poisonous tree | If an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable. | WP:FOTPT WP:FRUIT WP:POISON WP:POISONOUSFRUIT |
|
| Law sources as reliable sources | Some law sources may not be reliable. Others may be very complicated to use. | WP:LAWSOURCES WP:LAWSOURCE WP:LAWBOOKS WP:LAWBOOK |
|
| Tertiary-source fallacy | Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and style guides do not magically trump other sources, policy, and reasoning. | WP:TSF | |
| What SYNTH is not | Although avoiding original research is an important part of ensuring that Wikipedia content is verifiable, use some common sense about it, and particularly about asserting original research by synthesis. | WP:SYNTHNOT | Low |
| Writing about breeds | A crash course (mostly for new editors) in how to write encyclopedically about animal breeds and related topics. | WP:BREEDTIPS | |
| You don't need to cite that the sky is blue | Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, do not cite already obvious information. | WP:FACTS WP:BLUE |
Low |