Guideline:Reliable sources
Sarna News
 | This page documents an BattleTechWiki content guideline. |
 | This page in a nutshell: BattleTechWiki requires inline citations for all challenged or likely-to-be-challenged material, as well as for all quotations. New editors seeking a general overview should start with the referencing for beginners help page. |
BattleTechWiki articles on real world topics should rely on reliable sources, published when possible, ensuring that all majority and significant minority views are presented (). If no reliable sources are available, BattleTechWiki should not have an article on the topic.
For coverage of in-universe topics, the question of source reliability is largely one of canonicity: articles must be based on official canon and apocryphal sources. Canon and Policy:Canon cover canonicity and its interpretation.
Overview[edit]
This guideline explains what constitutes reliable sources on real world matters. The policy on sourcing is BattleTechWiki:Verifiability, which mandates inline citations for challenged material or direct quotations. These policies apply rigorously to all content; in case of conflicts between this guideline and sourcing policies, the policies take precedence.
Articles should be built on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This overview is not exhaustive; sourcing always depends on context and requires editorial judgment.
What defines a source?[edit]
Reliable sources are produced through a transparent, credible publication process or by recognized experts. However important things to remember are:
- Published sources - Published refers to material made publicly available, including text, audio, video, or multimedia. The key criteria are that the source originates from a reputable publisher and can be cited. Archived copies should exist, though accessibility via the internet is not mandatory.
- Context matters - Source reliability depends on the statement and context. Reliable sources directly support the claims made in BattleTechWiki articles. Avoid over-reliance on tangentially related or passing remarks.
- Usage by other sources - How widely a source is cited by credible publications can indicate its reliability. Frequent, uncritical use suggests reliability; widespread skepticism or controversy does not.
- News organizations - Established outlets are generally reliable for factual content but scrutinize opinion pieces and breaking news for biases or inaccuracies.
Questionable and self-published sources[edit]
- Questionable sources lack fact-checking or editorial oversight and are unsuitable for contentious claims.
- Self-published materials are generally unreliable unless authored by an established expert in the field.
Questionable sources[edit]
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or lacking editorial oversight. These include websites and publications known for extremist views, promotional content, or heavy reliance on rumors and personal opinions. Such sources are generally unsuitable for contentious claims about third parties, including individuals, organizations, and broader entities. Their appropriate use is highly limited.
Be cautious of sources that seem credible but fail to meet the reliability standards required by this guideline. For example, the Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might engage in predatory publishing, with questionable peer-review processes that undermine its reliability.
Self-published sources (online and paper)[edit]
Self-published works, such as personal web pages, self-published books, or social media posts, are generally unacceptable as sources. Examples include blogs, tweets, and forum posts.
However, self-published expert sources may be acceptable if the author is an established expert with prior work published by reliable, independent sources. Even in these cases, such sources should never be used for contentious claims about living individuals, regardless of the author's expertise.
User-generated content[edit]
Websites with predominantly user-generated content are usually not reliable. This includes personal blogs, group blogs (except for reputable ones like those of newspapers or magazines), content farms, forums, social media sites, and collaboratively created platforms like most wikis.
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit]
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:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The BattleTechWiki article is not based primarily on such sources.
Spurious sources produced by machine learning[edit]
Machine learning (ML)-generated content, including AI-generated text, has increased in prevalence. While ML tools can assist in content creation, they may also generate fabricated information or "hallucinate" citations that appear credible but are entirely fictional. Exercise caution and verify all claims and citations from sources suspected of using ML-generated content.
Specific Contexts[edit]
- Real people demand high sourcing standards to protect against harm.
- Sources require careful use to avoid undue interpretation.
- Quoted material must be accurate and attributed correctly.