 | This is anessay on theVerifiable policies and theCiting sources guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: It is always best to cite each idea or concept, even those that may seem obvious. You may be wrong, or they may be less than obvious to others. Instead of putting accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability at stake, simply source all your statements. |
.jpg)
The quality of Wikipedia improves when each statement is cited; our material is required to be verifiable withreliable sources as is covered in theWikipedia:Verifiability policy. Maintaining article standards is possible by followingcore content policies. The Verifiability policy maintains that "all materialmust be attributable to reliable, published sources." This means, when adding information, you must be able to back up each statement with a source. It must not only be possible to verify a claim, but alsofeasible. This is best achieved by usinginline citations and plenty of them.
One cause for "citation underkill" is the thought that it does not matter when good content is unsourced: thatgeneral knowledge needs no citations. The line separatinggeneral knowledge fromfolk knowledge,folk belief, andsuperstition is thin. By allowing certain statements to go unreferenced, Wikipedia risks furtheringfalse beliefs, spreadingerrors in reasoning, and reinforcingwidely held misconceptions.
Without citations, it is difficult to know that material is not just made up. In order to maintain aneutral point of view, it is critically important for an article to be verifiable, especially when sources disagree.Changing single words can cause a statement that was sourced to become a statement whichfails verification. When no citation is nearby, thiserror risks being missed. By not including a source when it can be, we make it hard to verify our articles and put their neutrality at risk, diminishing their encyclopedic value.
Theintegrity of content depends on where a citation is placed. Misplaced citations causecitation confusion, which makes it harder to verify claims. Placing citations where they clearly correspond to specific claims improves the verifiability in accordance withguidelines on footnotes. When no citation is placed to verify a claim or if the citation is made invisible (commented out), it decreases the verifiability of content, and readers may incorrectly hold that those statements are unsourced. Unsourced material on Wikipedia risks (rightly or wrongly) being considered asoriginal research. It also may be deleted.
Controversial claims usually require only single citations, but additional citations may decrease the degree with which the claim islikely to be challenged.Citation overkill can occur whenmany (often weak) sources are used to support the same statement, which can give a false sense of authority. Using as many sources as you need to ensure verifiability isnot overkill. In most cases, one citation to a reliable source for each statement is sufficient to satisfy verifiability.
.jpg)
It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article toGA-class (good article status) might addcitations to basic facts such as "...the sky is blue...".[3] This is agood thing, and the fact that thesky is not always blue does benefit from adding a citation. Wecan add citations for things that arewell-known, and the source can contain additional information to benefit our readers. For content thatfailed verification,sky blue cases are not applicable because the content is not verifiable using the source presented. That means content that failed verification is a violation ofWikipedia:Verifiability policy. Rather than skimming a source and adding a point or two, it is beneficial to study the source, as it may have additional information. Further, the same source could be used for another page on a related topic. TheHow to mine a source help page is a how-to on maximizing the information obtained from a single source. If a claim is only verifiable viaWP:PAYWALL then it is best to provide a citation. Where you may think citations are not needed they may be needed. For example,stand-alone lists arerequired to be sourced in the same manner as other articles. Wikipedia hasno firm rules, but by following the rules it is very possible to maintain ahigh quality of article content.[4] For example, see theLarry Sanger article. If arule prevents you from improving a page, then the rule iswrong or you are wrong. Think twice before breaking a rule.
One cause for "citation underkill" is the belief that something is suchcommon knowledge it needs no support. The line separatingcommon knowledge fromfolk knowledge,folk belief, andsuperstition is thin. By allowing statements of fact or belief to go unreferenced Wikipedia risks furtheringfalse beliefs and spreadingfallacies andwidely held misconceptions. Without a citation, unsupported content may bedeleted because the content may be considered incorrect.
Wikipedia editors can makemistakes, and assuming what you think is common knowledge may not be accepted as common knowledge by others. Set an example by citing your content properly, whether you think it is common or uncommon.
Addingcitations to the lead is done on a case-by-case basis. Providing citations in the lead can be very helpful, both for readers as well as editors. Without citations in the lead, our readers may think the content is not neutral or is original research, even if sourced in the body. We cannot expect our readers to always read the body to try to verify the content they read in the lead. Citations in the lead also helpreaders and editors find their way in the body of the article, when the citation supports the same or similar statements in different parts of the article. Contentious articles or articles on contentious topics benefit especially from citations in the lead.
WP:CITEBUNDLE claims bundling citations has several advantages, without explaining in detail when bundling poses disadvantages. When multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote, especially when bundling all the citations at the end of the sentence or paragraph it may be difficult to verify the article content. Another argument against bundling is that it presents an extra step for anyone wanting to review the source for a claim. When different citations support different parts of the same sentence bundling can cause citation confusion. It is best to unbundle bundled citations and place them where they verify each statement when different sources verify different parts of a sentence or paragraph. Ease of verification helps readers and editors.
Wikipedia:Verifiability states "In Wikipedia,verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from areliable source." When different sources verify different parts of a sentence or paragraph, moving all the citations to the end of a sentence or paragraph makes it difficult to check whether each statement is verifiable. An editor may think the content failed verification if the citations are misplaced.
In certain cases bundling citations may help readability, but if you're only talking about a handful of references—it likely doesn't. Bundling properly can be difficult and time-consuming, if you're not willing to put in the work—you're likely to leave a botched mess. It's better to leave citations visible unless you really know what you're doing.
When the sources verify the exact statement the citations may be bundled this way: The color of the sky changes at the beginning and at the end of the day.[1]
Bundling all the citations at the end of the sentence would make it difficult to verify each specific piece of content when multiple pieces of content require verification from different sources or when 17 different pieces of content require verification from different sources such as the following sentence: Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silicate, silver, strontium, tin, titanium, zinc, and zirconium have been found in the electronic cigarette aerosol.[1] For this particular case, it easier to verify each piece of content when each citation is placed where it verifies each claim.
If consecutive sentences are supported by the same citation, it isbetter for them to be all visibly shown. Hiding citations with the markup<!-- --> makes it difficult for our readers to verify claims. If citations are hidden it often is better to make them visible. References can occur and can become unhidden after each sentence, which is the preferred style formedical content. Hiding citations can cause confusion in the future.[5] For example, putting only one reference at the end of a section can require ongoing maintenance as other editors may mistakenly add {{cn}} tags or delete content that they believe is unreferenced.
To improve verifiability, material that is repeated multiple times throughout an article should have an inline citation for every mention. Doing so also increases the chance readers and editors will find the appropriate source for each statement. Without an inline citation next to each claim, it is difficult for readers to verify claims. Therefore, it can be reasonable to provide inline citations repeatedly, although care should be taken as perWP:CONSECUTIVECITE. This can be accomplished by adding to the main citation a markup like this:<ref name=Latash2008>, while using a corresponding named-ref abbreviated citation like this:<ref name=Latash2008/>.
Citation underkill often occurs when:
An example of how to place sources in the middle of a sentence, in an example where it is appropriate:
Bundling all the citations together in one citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph often make it difficult to determine which citation verifies which claim. An extreme example where specific claims are verified individually is this:
WP:CONSECUTIVECITE andWikipedia:Citation overkill suggests that repetitive use of the same inline citations is overkill and causes clutter, but the advantage of doing so helps an editor or reader quickly locate the citation and check to make sure the content is properlysourced. After an editor clicks to edit an article, it often states at the top, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Removing a citation while citingWP:REPCITE, for example, may lead to difficulty in verifying a claim or it may even be perceived as a violation of Wikipedia'sVerifiability policy. Placing a citation at the end of each paragraph instead of after each sentence within that paragraph may result in the content being tagged with acitation needed tag. It is better to place a citation at the end of each sentence to improve the ability to verify each statement. The content could be mistakenly deleted if someone thinks the content is unsourced.
Merging a sentence without a citation with a sentence that does have a citation can render the newly formed sentence as partially failed verification. This can occur when a sentence was added into a paragraph without a citation. Merging sentences together without using the appropriate citations cause citation craziness. If you want to delete a sentence then be sure that the citation left behind is not misplaced. If you delete a sentence that verified only that claim then you should also delete the citation that verified that claim. If you leave behind the citation it may not verify the previous statement. If more than one source is being used to verify a claim and you are changing the wording that is verifiable to only one source, then be sure to remove the other sources that do not verify the new claim. When adding wholly new information, make sure it is cited to the correct citation.Citation hijacking occurs when adding new information before an existing citation where it does not verify the claim. When an editor rewrites a sentence that is properly sourced and adds one or more citations where there already is a citation at the end of a sentence it may cause a problem. The new citation may verify the new sentence but often the original citation used to verify the previous sentence does not verify the new sentence.
When multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage it is important to place each citation where they verify each specific concept or idea. This also acts to increase the life-span of text on Wikipedia. If you write a paragraph, which later gets a new statement added in the middle of it—citing a different source – you will havecitation confusion.
Simple claims can become confusing to verify. In certain circumstances, to avoid citation confusion it is easier to verify each specific claim by placing the citation where it verifies each claim, rather than place all the citations at the end of the sentence or paragraph.
A clear example of this can be found atMalaria, where one citation is broken up by another, and where citations at the end of a paragraph makes it more difficult toverify:
Benefits of proper citation are not limited tomedicine, and a good example of proper use of citations can be found in theFeatured article onUkiyo-e (exhibited on the main page on 25 June 2017):
Citing the page number or page numbers for the specific content used to source the statement or quotation in the article, makes it easier to verify the claim rather than a page range using the same repeated citation. If you are citing a book or PDF file then citing the specific page number or page numbers can be especially helpful for anyone reading the source.
One way to verify each specific page number without creating duplicate full citations is like this:
Enhancing the availability of drinking water can lead to clear benefits to health.[1] Drinking water containing nitrate and nitrite has been linked tomethaemoglobinaemia, in particular to bottle-fed babies.[2] It is recommended that water be absent of tastes and odors that would be unpleasant to most people.[3]
A== Bibliography == section can be created for adding the main citation and a named-ref abbreviated citation is used for each page number. The named-ref abbreviated citation is placed specifically where it verifies the claim.
The main citation looks like this:{{cite web|url=http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq0506.pdf|title=Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality|publisher=World Health Organization|year=2006|ref={{harvid|WHO|2016}}}} and the named-ref abbreviated citation looks like this:{{sfn|WHO|2016|p=7}}.
Another way to provide a page number for each citation is by using the markup{{rp|}}. This is accomplished by placing it at end of the citation like this:[1]: 7
.jpg)
Placing a citation after each idea or concept does not guarantee the content is verifiable.Consensus on Wikipedia does not magically generate accuracy. An editor may propose achange to consensus bydiscussion orediting. The verifiability of the content depends heavily on whether the content is in actuality verified to the source placed after each idea or concept. Furthermore, placing an inline citation where it verifies the content is important, but it is equally or even more important for the content to beneutrally written. By followingNeutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research policies, citation balancekill (the sum of accurately sourced knowledge) is attainable. Altering the original meaning of the content may violateverifiable policy. The content is more accurate and neutral when including a modifier orweasel word supported by the source. Adding a modifier to a sentence not supported by the source alters the original meaning of the source.Weasel words orunsupported attributions are words and phrases that give an appearance that something explicit has been stated, when in actuality only a vague or ambiguous claim has been presented.[6] When a source indicates only a vague or ambiguous claim, then the content added to an article should also indicate a vague or ambiguous claim.
Even changing single words or certain phrases can render sourced content unsourced, that is,failed of verification. Even when the content meets verifiability policy when written, an editor may rewrite it, say adding a phrase or otherwise modifying a sentence, perhaps long afterward. The revised sentence may then say something the source does not mention, leaving it no longer verifiable. This issue is often overlooked. For instance, if a source indicates a quantity with the indefinite pronoun "some," then the Wikipedia content may use that or a close synonym. One may do this only when the source has done so, so as not to mislead. One may not use "some" when the source uses a different indication of quantity, such as numerous or substantial. If the source does not use the word "some," or if, by combining sources, one cannot conclude that the quantity is "some," then the result probably amounts to original research or a synthesis violation.
We don't conduct our own reviews of the sources on Wikipedia. For example, when two reviews verify the same content we can't state "Two reviews found...". This would in effect be combining material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any individual source. The content must be able to be verifiable to a reliable source, not by counting of references that are present in a Wikipedia article.[7] It is not an allowable provision to include content that failed verification. Therefore, we can't state "Two reviews found..." unless an individual source stated it was "Two reviews...". Moreover, when there is no serious dispute between sources, the content shouldnormally be assertedwithout in-text attribution.
For example, "There is some evidence that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects compared with the typicalWestern diet.[3]"[8] This is incorrect. The part "some" has failed verification. The word some is an unsupported weasel word because the source does not accurately reflect the opinion of reliable sources support that word in reference to that content. SeeWP:SOME. The following is correct: The evidence indicates that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects compared with the typicalWestern diet.[1]
Another example is the following: E-cigarettes are likely safer thantobacco.[1] This is incorrect. The part "likely" has failed verification. The following is correct: E-cigarettes are generally considered safer thantobacco.[1]
Editors mistakenly use unsupported weasel words even when they believe they are correct. For example, as of 18:05, 28 June 2017 Wikipedia'sElectrical disruptions caused by squirrels states: "In the U.S., squirrels have been the cause of many power outages in Pennsylvania.[n 1]"[9] This is incorrect. The word "many" has failed verification. Adding up different sources together to come to a new conclusion is anovel synthesis.
Bear in mind that we are required to avoidcopyright infringement andplagiarism. This requires us touse our own words to express the information we get from the reference. This means we paraphrase and thus words not found in the sources can be used even if they are not the exact same meaning. Changing the wording and rearranging ideas is also an important part of paraphrasing. The information should also be delicately summarized or rephrasedwithout altering its meaning or implication. It is possible to construct an alternative wordings without violating the principle of verifiability.
Quality of citations, not their sheer quantity, improves article content.Unreliable sources can be removed, but it is better if possible to replace them with reliable ones in order to preserve article content. Multiple low quality citations following a statement does not make it more true. Over-citing content especially for non-controversial claims should be avoided.
Editors have cited Citation overkill as a reason for adding additional citations after each sentence for non-controversial claims. Citation overkill appears to support adding more than one citation after each sentence, regardless of circumstance. Editors have misinterpreted Citation overkill into thinking that it is okay to add more than one citation after each claim in any circumstance. This sort of "reference spamming" disrupts the flow of reading an article. Citation overkill states "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote." If the sources actually do contain beneficial information they could be used to cite other information instead of cluttering the article. If an editor insists on keeping the additional citations they can be commented out using the markup<!-- --> in order to avoid cluttering the article with needless citations. On the other hand, merging citations into a single footnote can also clutter the reference section.
Another type of reference spamming is called failed verification spamming. One way to spot failed verification spamming is when an editor who restores the additional citations refuses to provide verification on the talk page for the additional citations. Wikipedia requires that a citation presented for a claim verify the entire claim.[10] If the additional citations only partially verifies the claim then the additional citations still failed to verify the claim. It is not a valid argument to keep the additional citations when they do not verify the entire claim. However, if a sentence is making two separate claims it would be best to use a satisfactory source for each, placed following its respective claim. If one of the citations verifies the entire claim then you may only need to use one citation.
One citation after each sentence for non-controversial claims is usually sufficient. Adding more citations than needed can causecitation bloat. More than three citations for non-controversial claims or even controversial claims may be excessive. Reference spamming occurs when an editor adds the same citation multiple places in an article where it is unnecessary or does not verify the claim. Moreover, failed verification spamming occurs when more than one citation is used to try to convince others the claim is sourced when the sources presented does not verify the claim. Forcontroversial claims one citation is usually enough for content that islikely to be challenged. If the claim is extraordinarily controversial then the content may require more than one citation. Adding more than one citation after each statement is done on a case-by-case basis. The purpose of a citation is for readers to be able to verify the content presented, not to persuade to other editors the validity of the content.
In certain circumstances, a verycontroversial claimlikely to be challenged may retain as many as three references, cited in this form:
The benefits and thehealth risks of e-cigarettes are uncertain.[1][2][3]
Verification must be feasible. Thismeans:
This doesnot mean:
{{Welcome-citation}} → regular welcome that encourages citing sources| Code | Result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{User:UserBox/NOTBLUE}} |
| Usage |
Wikipedia doesnot publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must beattributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
In Wikipedia,verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from areliable source. Wikipedia does not publishoriginal research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.
All content must be verifiable.
