Wikipedia:Attribution/Examples

Following are examples intended to illustrate Attribution. Note that these examples do not constitute policy (though they may include precedents derived from policy)--any examples which are found to contradict the policy should be removed. They are only here to assist the reader in their understanding of policy.

Unacceptable sources
The following sources are, in general, not acceptable for use as a reference on Wikipedia. Note that the exceptions listed may be acceptable but not reliable.


 * Ephemera, such as train schedules, ticket stubs, and such--unless archived and published, and used to document the particulars of a given time. Reason: Not published.


 * Usenet postings. Reason: Easily forged, frequently anonymous; no way to determine the author.  Exceptions:  Usenet postings which have been vouched for by the author in a reliable medium, and which are otherwise notable, may be used in certain contexts.  An example are the collections of Usenet postings by J. Michael Straczynski, which are archived on his home page; these are reliable sources on the subject of Babylon 5.  Limited use of Usenet postings may also be appropriate when Usenet itself is the subject.


 * Weblog talkbacks, talkbacks on other Internet forums, etc. Reason:  In general, no way to verify the author.


 * E-mail, instant messages, IRC, etc., unless transcribed and published by a reliable source. Reason: Not published.


 * Weblogs, pages on websites such as MySpace.com, etc. Reason:  Difficult to verify the author; anyone can set these up.  Exceptions:  Weblogs of notable individuals, who vouch for the weblog in an external reliable source; or which are hosted by a reliable source such as an individual's employer, university, or other organization to which the individual belongs.


 * Wikis, including Wikipedia itself. Reason:  Content may change at any time; authorship may be sufficiently defuse that it is difficult to determine the origins of a source.  Referencing specific edits or versions which are endorsed by an external reliable source may be appropriate; some wikis are considered authoritative sources on particular topics.  Note that use of Wikipedia as a reference for articles on Wikipedia is inappropriate, even if wikis themselves were reliable, simply due to the fact that circular references are inappropriate.


 * Audio conversations and media (including telephone, radio, public speeches, private conversations, etc). unless transcribed and/or recorded by a reliable source. After-the-fact transcriptions are generally not acceptable, as even when honestly undertaken, the faulty memories of humans will introduce error.


 * All forms of written personal correspondence, unless archived and published by a reliable source.


 * Non-media physical objects of any sort.


 * Letters to the editor, calls into talk-radio shows, and other forums where relevance may be difficult to establish.

Unreliable sources
The following sources meet the minimum criteria of acceptability, but may pose reliability issues for one or more reasons. These should be used with caution, should be explicitly attributed when used, and may only be appropriate for limited claims or subjects.


 * Websites, publications, or organizations, or individuals which are overtly political; such as those belonging to or affiliated with political parties, elected officials, candidates for elected office, Advocacy groupss (also known as 'interest groups' of 'special interest goups'), or other entities prominently engaged in advocacy. This is especially true of those sources associated with extremist organizations; many of whom have historically shown a wanton disregard for accuracy.  Reason:  Inherently biased, some may be untrustworthy.  OK when used to provide information on themselves or their positions.  Note that some such organizations will go to great length to cloak their purpose, and attempt to assume the mantle of non-partisan research organizations.


 * Supermarket tabloids, gossip columns, paparazzi, etc. Reason:  Frequently untrustworthy and/or inaccurate; often contain articles which are obviously false (such as stories of three-headed chickens and such).

Reliable sources
The following sources are generally considered reliable:


 * Peer reviewed academic journals, when used in conjunction with a subject which is the journal's focus.
 * News reports by major news organizations or wire services.
 * Nonfiction works written by notable authors, and published by major publishing houses.