 | This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Please be mindful that a reliable source to you may not be so for others; try to obtain objectively reliable sourcing. |
Please remember that the website, news program, and newsletter that you find reliable and often use to get information may not be viewed the same by other editors of Wikipedia. In these situations it is best to find an objective source which corroborates your favored source.
Many times discussions on whether to include information into articles turns on whether it can be reliably sourced. Often the discussion may proceed like this:
- Editor 1: Has this been reported anywhere? We need a reliable source.
- Editor 2: Yes, I saw it last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
- Editor 1: Olbermann!? That's not a reliable source, that guy lies all the time and has a bias against X in any case.
- Editor 2: That's not true, and besides most of the information on that program is true anyway. You don't have to like the source, it only needs to be reliable.
Although editor 2 may be correct in reading the letter of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources, another response, which would have garnered more good faith, and would be more preferable would have been this:
- Editor 2: Fine, you don't like Olbermann, but he was reporting on something that was in the AP, and I can find the story in my local newspaper.
Or
- Editor 2: Although I think the information is reliably sourced, I'll wait to find a source that we both agree is reliable, like the newspaper or AP.