Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?
No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?
Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?
No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
What if the source is biased?
Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?
No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
Are sources required in all articles?
Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024.
Are reliable sources required to name the author?
No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?
No. Wikipedia editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Wikipedia article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
Does anyone read the sources?
Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.
The answer is: It depends on which channel. Obviously, a random person uploading a video of their kids playing is not a reliable source. At the other end of the spectrum, a lot of television news shows put copies of their news on YouTube, and it would be silly to say that the news show is reliable if you watch it on TV but not reliable if you watch the same thing from the same news channel on YouTube. In between those two things, you have to use your best judgment. For example, if a musician makes a video saying why they wrote a particular song, or that they're 25 years old, then that's reliable as an WP:ABOUTSELF statement. But you wouldn't want to use a musician's video saying things about a political candidate or the price of eggs or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube isn’t a source itself but a platform the actual source would be the uploader of any of the videos. Also one other thing to be careful of is the possibility of copyright violations since some people do upload content they don’t own the rights to.--65.92.245.71 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source like this[1] is definitely an RS because: (1) it is produced by the museum housing the ship in question (2) it is presented by the Director of Research of that museum (3) the presenter has edited, contributed to and written three books which are an RS for the relevant article (4) the presenter is a noted expert in their field, with numerous research papers which are cited by others. I don't think you need me to give examples at the other end of the spectrum. There might be some difficulty in assessing the value of videos in the "shades of grey" area in-between these extremes. ThoughtIdRetiredTIR12:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comments given at WP:RSPYT discourage use of YT for any use, partly because there should be an original text source that is easier/quicker to obtain encyclopedic background. YT sources may be WP:COPYVIO, and are mostly accompanied by margin ads, which are contrary to Wikipedia's no-ad policy. YT also requires higher bandwidth, creating access challenges for users with low-quality Internet service. Best to revert any YT source per RSPYT and find a WP:RS. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "policy" implies a technical definition not specifically included among those at WP:PG. From the Wikimedia FAQ:"Wikipedia is not funded through advertising", which I know you knew that I knew. Zefr (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not funded through advertising" sounds nothing at all like "Reliable sources are not allowed to have margin ads", as you know very well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the margin of a YT source is populated with ads, or the video is interrupted by ads, this would signal to an editor that a better source should be found. Acceptance of a source with ads is acceptance of its advertising, then passed to the next Wikipedia user to wonder about source quality - an avoidable practice.
Is there a discussion or policy revision proposal specifically accepting sources with moderate-heavy margin or in-video advertising? Zefr (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think advertising is irrelevant to reliability. Remember that newspapers, which we cite extensively, typically have many advertisements. Advertisements are an aspect of the source's financial model, not an aspect of their reliability. Zerotalk00:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said… YouTube is a hosting service, not a source itself. Most of what is posted to YouTube is unreliable, but some of it is quite reliable. It depends on who posted it. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the margin of an ordinary daily newspaper is populated with ads – and pretty much all of them are – do you think we should stop using newspapers, because that's a signal to an editor that a better source should be found?
Advertising is not a signal of reliability. Some ad-heavy sites are generally reliable sources, and some ad-free sites are not. The New York Times is full of advertisements; the Scientology website has none. But it's the NYT that's reliable, not the scientologists' website.
AFAIK the only serious discussion about rejecting advertisements is about Wikipedia:External links, and the usual challenge there is to convince zealous editors that when WP:ELNO#EL5 rejects "objectionable amounts of advertising", it does not mean "any advertising at all is objectionable". Even that doesn't come up very often, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I had a look at RSP on YouTube. It was marked as a "questionable source" in the early days. Template:Questionable sourcedisplays as "Generally unreliable". The initial version linked five previous discussions:
a video of a politician that was wanted for a direct quotation, because "MSM [mainstream media] censors this"
a video of guest lecture by an author, talking about the themes in his own work, at a major research university
a general question of whether clips of ordinary television news reports (CNN and Reuters were given as examples) are acceptable
a general question, to which editors say things like "very simple" because we accept "the channel of an official news organizations", "perfect examples of when YouTube can be used", etc.
a video of a speech at a convention, to which editors say things like ""YouTube videos" are not inherently reliable or unreliable as sources, any more than "books" or "TV programmes"", and it turns out that the OP wants YouTube as a whole to be declared unreliable because this one speech "presents commercial activities" (classic case of moving goalposts).
In other words, nothing that could support the designation as WP:GUNREL.
At the time, RSP was using a three-color model: "Good", "No consensus", and "Generally unreliable". I think that in the current model, a more accurate description would be "Additional considerations apply". Specifically, it doesn't matter if it's "YouTube"; it matters whether it's an official channel for an ordinary reliable source vs a self-published video.
[2] Here's what I found. In that article, there's both author's name and date. But I think it's too fast to determine that the source is reliable just because it includes both author's name and date, so I wanted to ask about it here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[3] I can't find the content about advertisement or something. However, I'm still not sure if this magazine is reliable or not.
mxdwn, this website is frequently used on music articles. First of all, this website shows author's name and article's date. And then I checked About Us page, and they said:
mxdwn.com is an established online entertainment magazine that focuses on news, original reviews, features, photography and interviews. We are a leader and innovator in providing dynamic entertainment content. Over the past 12 years, mxdwn has established itself as one of the most credible, reliable and forward-thinking entertainment publications in North America. What began as a music magazine founded by Editor in Chief Raymond Flotat has evolved into a valued resource not only for music but also for movies, video games, television and pop culture. Our readers rely on us to provide timely and relevant entertainment news, thoughtful reviews, up-to-the-minute event coverage, and to accurately report on all that matters in entertainment.
Also, please read the FAQ at the top of this page, especially the question that says:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?
No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
People including me have asked about reliable sources which are related to music genre in this page. Even some users replied to me. I asked on that page of course, but still no one replied. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sometimes with brand-new editors, it's easier to reply wherever they post, because they don't know how to navigate the site as well as someone with your experience should be able to.
An in-process dissertation hasn't been vetted, but it's not even a preprint, as it's not finished. It would surprise me if anyone publishes their in-process dissertation, and if it's not made available to the public, it doesn't pass WP:V, in which case we don't have to ask whether it's an RS. Even if it were posted to a personal website, it's written by someone who probably wouldn't pass EXPERTSPS. It wouldn't surprise me if a section of the work had been presented at a professional conference with a short paper appearing in the conference proceedings, where the work may at least have been vetted by a reviewer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "not regarded as published" bit caught my eye, because unless you're engaging in WP:SELFCITE or have personal access (e.g., it's your friend's dissertation), then it's WP:Published as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
A lot of PhD candidates, at least in the sciences, have a couple of existing publications, so they probably would pass EXPERTSPS.
And, as you say, individual sections of the dissertation may have been published somewhere, either at a conference or as a journal article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one even find in-progress dissertations? I have only seen these through private email circulation. Is it common enough to try to use these as references that we even need to specifically warn against doing that? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has several problems. "Not regarded as published" suggests we are making an exception to the long-standing-and-long-fought-over wiki-definition of "published", and I think that's a bad idea. The sentence also claims that unreliability follows from non-publication, which is not true. Second, "in progress" is not defined and could have several meanings. It could mean that the student is still busy writing it, or it could mean that the thesis is finished but is still waiting to pass examination. David is correct that few or no theses in progress in the first sense are available to the public. A few in the second category might be available on a student's web page or a preprint server. If we need anything at all, I'd suggest something simple like
"A thesis which has not passed examination is not considered reliable."
In my opinion unfinished dissertations are private affairs and should not be cited in Wikipedia. A dissertation that is finished and accepted counts in my opinion as a reliable source--it has been read and approved by experts on the dissertation committee. About half of the approved finished PhD dissertations in history are published by Proquest and if you ask at a library you can get a free downloaded copy. I do that and cite them in Wiki footnotes and Further Reading. Also some universities now put all their finished dissertations online for free downloading by anyone. However, the other half get the title listed by Proquest but their contents are not online. They are locked up--no one can purchase a copy. You have to go to its original campus to read it, and that very rarely happens with Wikipedia editors. Off hand I can't recall seeing a single example in a Wiki article in my years here. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified this down to "Unfinished dissertations are generally not reliable sources". Anyone is welcome to argue that this may "generally" be true but the one particular dissertation they want to cite is "specifically" okay. If they've got a good, common-sense argument, they'll get no opposition from me (though I make no promises on behalf of other editors, as everyone has different ideas about what constitutes a good, common-sense argument). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability marks for typically unreliable sources
I don't if this has been discussed before or if this talk page is the place to do it; I have two typically unreliable blog sources that are proven to be ne reliable. Is there a way to mark them in the article as vetted and confirmed as reliable for future editors. Should I just use hidden text to explain their reliability? I'm reviewing Nicolinas and I found two blog sources, one of which isn't primary, but speaking with the nominator, we agreed there are reliable. This blog post is written by António Amaro Neves, a local academic who also wrote a book on Nicolinas (the book. The other blog is self-published by Nicolinas Committee, but the page doesn't outwardly show it; so it can be confused for a unaffiliated blog. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often I will wikilink the author of a blog post as evidence that they are a recognized expert, but if we don't have an article about the author you could leave an html comment in the reference indicating your evidence for reliability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
