From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia This user might be an aspiring cabalist, if the cabal exists, that is. This user is a code monkey. This user contributes using Microsoft Windows Vista.

Hi there! Leave comments for me on my discussion page. If you are new to Wikipedia, you cannot go wrong by reading WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY.

[edit] Key things to know about Wikipedia

Just because you can link to it doesn’t mean it’s a reliable published source. Some things which are not reliable sources according to that policy:

• “Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.”
• Things such as “self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources,” except in cases where a “well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.”
• If a source is self-published and the article is about that self-publisher, it can be a primary source only, and only if not contentious, and only if it is not a post to a bulletin board or blog comments section.
• A source is not reputable if it does not have several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, and in general, a professional staff or presence.

Related is the prohibition on no original research. If you do not use a reliable source then you are conducting original research by definition. Original research includes “unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position.” A good rule of thumb:

• If your source functions as a proof (good or bad) as opposed to documentation, it is original research. If your source required interpretation to be considered documentation, it is original research.

The guidelines says that editors should completely exclude anything that “introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.”

Wikipedia is not a repository of opinion. It is an encyclopedia.

If an article addresses specific living persons (their thoughts, actions) the burden of proof is higher. The founder of Wikipedia writes:

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. [1]

The guidelines make it clear that this is not limited to biographical articles, it applies to all articles.