| ??? ????? ????????? ????????????? ???? ??????? ??. ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? 100% ???????????? ???? ???????????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????.
|
|
??? ?????? ????? ????? ????????:
Wikipedia requires
inline citations
for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and instead just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the
referencing for beginners help page
.
|
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
.
?? ?????????
???? ????? ??? ??????, ????????? ??
???????
, ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????????? ???? ????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???. ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????????????? ??? ???? ????. ??? ?????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????. ???? ?????????
???????
???????? ?? ??? ????; ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ??????.
?????????? ???? ???????
?????????
??? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ??????. ????????? ???, ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????. ??????????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????. ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??.
????????????? ???????????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???, ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????:
?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????????????? ???? ?????.
??????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ????????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????, ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ????. ??? ????????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ?? ?????.
????????? ???? ???????
???????? ??? ??
??????? ????? ?????, ???????????? ?????? ????,
??? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ????
???? ???????????. ??? ??? ????????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ????????????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ??; ???? ?????, ????????, ??????, ?? ????????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????. ??? ????, ?????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ?????. ???????, ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????. ???????? ????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?, ????? ???????? ?????? ????.
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
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.
[notes 1]
- 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
).
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should
at best
be treated similarly to
self-published sources
.
[notes 2]
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
).
[6]
- 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.
[notes 3]
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.
[7]
[8]
- 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
.
[notes 4]
- 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:
- It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
- 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
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
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.
[9]
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.
[10]
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.
[11]
[12]
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.
[13]
Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal,
[14]
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,
[15]
or "Suppl." in a reference.
[16]
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)
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
[17]
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
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
Notes
- ↑
Examples include
The Creation Research Society Quarterly
and
Journal of Frontier Science
(the latter uses
blog comments as peer review
).
???????? ?? ?????
2019-04-20 at the
Wayback Machine
).
- ↑
Many submissions to these predatory journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers.
- ↑
Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require
exceptional sources
, and this is policy.
- ↑
A variety of these incidents have been documented by
Private Eye
and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as
vandalism
or otherwise have appeared in newspapers
References
- ↑
Beall, Jeffrey
(1 January 2015).
"Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers"
(PDF)
(3rd?ed.). Scholarly Open Access. 5 January 2017 ???
???? ?????
?????? ???????? ??? ???.
- ↑
Kolata, Gina
(???????? 7, 2013).
"Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)"
.
The New York Times
. ???????? 11, 2013 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? ???????? 11, 2013
.
- ↑
Butler, Declan (?????? 28, 2013).
"Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees"
.
Nature
. Vol.?495. pp.?421?422. ???????? 13, 2013 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? ???????? 11, 2013
.
- ↑
Bohannon, John
(4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?".
Science
.
342
(6154): 60?65.
doi
:
10.1126/science.342.6154.60
.
PMID
24092725
.
- ↑
Kolata, Gina (30 ???????? 2017).
"Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals"
.
The New York Times
. 8 ????????? 2017 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? 2 ????????? 2017
.
- ↑
Miller, Laura (???????? 16, 2011).
"
'Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy"
.
Salon
. Salon Media Group. ???????? 16, 2011 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? ???????? 17, 2011
.
[Debbie Nathan] also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.'
- ↑
"Book reviews"
.
Scholarly definition document
. Princeton. 2011. ????????? 5, 2011 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? ??????????? 22, 2011
.
- ↑
"Book reviews"
.
Scholarly definition document
. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2011. ??????????? 10, 2011 ???
???? ?????
?????? ???????? ??? ???
. ??????????? ??????????? 22, 2011
.
- ↑
Malone Kircher, Madison (????????? 15, 2016).
"Fake Facebook news sites to avoid"
.
New York Magazine
. ????????? 16, 2016 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ??????????? ????????? 15, 2016
.
- ↑
An example is the
Daily Mail
, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per
this RfC
.
- ↑
Beall, Jeffrey
(25 ???????? 2015).
"
'Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers"
(PDF)
.
The Charleston Advisor
. 4 ?????? 2016 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
(PDF)
. ??????????? 7 ?????? 2016
.
- ↑
Beall, Jeffrey.
"Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers"
. 17 January 2017 ???
???? ?????
?????? ???????? ??? ???.
- ↑
Fees, F. (2016),
Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals
,
http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
, ????????????? 2019-01-12
Conflicts-of-interest section
???????? ?? ?????
2018-12-30 at the
Wayback Machine
, [Last update on 2015 Dec].
- ↑
Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers, TC (13 July 1994). "Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal".
JAMA
.
272
(2): 108?13.
doi
:
10.1001/jama.1994.03520020034009
.
PMID
8015117
.
- ↑
Nestle, Marion (2 ?????? 2007).
"Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?"
(PDF)
.
Public Health Nutrition
.
4
(5): 1015?1022.
doi
:
10.1079/PHN2001253
.
PMID
11784415
.
S2CID
17781732
. 17 ????????? 2018 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
(PDF)
. ??????????? 12 ?????? 2019
.
- ↑
See
this discussion
of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.
- ↑
"The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook | On the Media"
.
WNYC
(????????? ?????). 2019-02-28 ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????
???????? ?????
. ???????????
2019-03-14
.
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
|
---|
????????
| |
---|
?????????-???????? ???????????
| |
---|
???? ??????? ???????????
| |
---|
??????????? ?????? ????? ???????????
| |
---|
???????? ???????????
| |
---|
???????? ?????? ???????????
| |
---|
???????? ?????? ???????????
| |
---|
??????? ???????????
| |
---|
????? ???????
| |
---|
???????? ???????????
| |
---|
?????????? ????
| |
---|
|