User:Armedblowfish/Self-published sources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. You are invited to make changes to the page as you see fit. You may also discuss it on the talk page. Note that opinions expressed in this essay is contradictory to current policies and guidelines. |
[edit] From policy
Note: This section may not be up-to-date. Please refer to WP:ATT for the latest version.
- A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.
There are two exceptions:
- 1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
- Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
- it is relevant to their notability;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it
- the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article.
- 2. Professional self-published sources
- When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.
[edit] Another idea for conditions for the use of self-published sources
Note: This is an opinion. It is not actual policy or guideline.
Self-published sources, or sources without any editorial oversight, are only considered reliable when the following conditions are met:
- The material is demonstrably significant to the topic at hand. This could be demonstrated if a reliable secondary source, like the New York Times, discusses the source in relation to the topic. It could also be proved if multiple reliable secondary sources applaud the author as an expert on the topic, and there is evidence that the author did indeed write the source. In other words, the lack of editorial oversight can be made up with recognition by other reliable sources, and possibly expertise and attributability.
- The material is relevant to the topic at hand.
- The material is attributed as being the opinion of the self-published source or its author. This is not neccessary if there is corroboration from more reliable sources. It is not uncommon for self-published sources to be biased, and biased statements require prose attribution regardless of the source.
You should ensure that the version of the self-published source remains in the same version recognised by the secondary sources.
