喺呢個指引下，有嘢啲來料如果係俾人查驗過冇超出合理懷疑係有唔可信嘅話、可能會畀提出刪除，不過編輯者亦可以提出反對，照呢度嘅程序只要係有爭議嘅時候都要畀機會去討論返啲爭議，喺提出質疑來料依據啲可信度嘅時候、就一定要畀時間等編輯參與返去檢視啲爭議係咪適當，查驗編輯假如要正式咁提出懷疑某一質素同可信度高要求嘅文案度有流料嘅，可以先去有問題篇文嘅討論頁提出，另外亦可以喺篇文度加一個根據要求嘅模，即係咁：{{fact}}，或者喺無根據嘅內容上加呢個模：{{Unreferenced}}，同時亦可以加一啲唔會顯示出嚟嘅 HTML 提示，或者加喺編輯摘要入面。[1]
↑SeeHelp:Editing#Basic text formatting: "Invisible comments to editors only appear while editing the page. If you wish to make comments to the public, you should usually go on the talk page."
↑原文：I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.出自Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16).""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l 通訊存檔. 喺2006-06-11搵到.
↑"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.See e.g.,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_(game)_(6th_nomination) for an often-cited example deletion discussion covering this matter. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources.
