 | This is anessay onIndependent sources. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community. |
 | This essaymay incorporate text from alarge language model. It may includehallucinated information,copyright violations, claims notverified in cited sources,original research, orfictitious references. Any such material should beremoved, and content with anunencyclopedic tone should be rewritten. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and verifiable information based on reliable sources. One of the key considerations when evaluating sources is their independence. Academic publications or professionals operating in lowacademic freedom environments, those where certain topics are heavily influenced by a government, may or may not be allowable as a source on Wikipedia. This essay discusses concerns associated with these sources, the importance of academic freedom,editorial independence, and their potential impact on Wikipedia'sneutrality,verifiability, and commitment to avoidingpromotional content.
A fundamental principle of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines is editorial independence.Reliable sources are expected to operate with a degree of autonomy from the entities they report on. Authoritarian governments, by their very nature, may not allow for accurate or sufficient coverage of sensitive topics. This is especially true in authoritarian or highly centralized political systems where academic freedom is most restricted. Some editors consider the lack of academic freedom to be an unavoidableconflict-of-interest for these publishers.
TheAcademic Freedom Index is one measure of how severe restrictions on academics have been in the 20th and 21st centuries. Given significant variations between countries (and within some countries over time), Wikipedia editors might want to carefully assess the reliability of each state media source at the time it was published on a case-by-case basis. Using such sources uncritically can undermine Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability. The field of study and other context can matter quite a bit when deciding whether to use content created in environments of low academic freedom. They can sometimes be used for attribution (e.g., "Russian state media reported that..."), but it is generally preferable to rely on independent news organizations when available and especially on political topics. If unsure, look at past discussions on thereliable sources noticeboard (RSN) to help determine how to best meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards.
Similar tomedia capture, Academics and their institutions can be swayed by financial or political influences. This capture can promote corporate narratives or used to limit or change narratives in favor of particular governments, even those outside the academic or institution's country.
While Wikipedia does not have a blanket prohibition on academic sources by the level of academic freedom, many editors encourage others to exercise caution when citing them. Some considerations include:
Wikipedia's goal of providing verifiable and neutral information necessitates a careful approach to sourcing. Academic sources from more authoritarian countries with low academic freedom require scrutiny due to potential biases, lack of editorial independence, and, in some cases, documented histories of spreading disinformation. While there is no broad ban on academics from these countries in general, editors should always prioritize independent sources whenever possible and apply due diligence when incorporating these academics into Wikipedia articles where the government of that academic has a strong point of view on the subject. Discussions within the Wikipedia community help ensure that sourcing remains aligned with the project's mission to provide reliable and unbiased knowledge to readers worldwide.