WikiPartner:Source guidelines

WikiPartner articles should be based on information that readers can verify.

Sources help editors confirm facts, judge whether a subject qualifies for coverage, resolve conflicting claims, and maintain neutral, accurate articles.

These guidelines explain what kinds of sources are generally preferred on WikiPartner.

General principle

Use sources that are appropriate for the claim being made.

A strong source should normally be:

• Identifiable
• Relevant to the claim
• Published by a credible source
• Reasonably independent when independence matters
• Accessible enough for editors to verify
• Clear about the information being cited

The quality of the source should match the importance of the claim.

Extraordinary, controversial, disputed, or reputation-sensitive claims require especially strong sourcing.

Independent sources

Independent sources are sources that are not controlled by the subject of the article and do not have a direct promotional interest in the subject.

Examples may include:

• Established newspapers
• Recognized news publications
• Magazines
• Books from reputable publishers
• Academic journals
• University publications
• Government publications
• Regulatory bodies
• Court records where appropriate
• Established trade publications
• Reputable professional or industry publications
• Independent research organizations

Independent sources are especially important when establishing whether a subject has enough public relevance for a standalone article.

See Inclusion guidelines.

First-party sources

First-party sources are materials published by the subject itself or by an organization directly connected to the subject.

Examples include:

• Official websites
• Official company reports
• Official biographies
• Government agency websites describing their own activities
• Verified organizational announcements
• Official product documentation
• Official social media accounts
• Company filings and investor materials

First-party sources can be useful for straightforward factual information such as:

• Official name
• Website
• Headquarters
• Leadership
• Product names
• Founding information
• Organizational structure
• Officially announced services
• Technical specifications

However, first-party sources should be used carefully for claims about importance, success, influence, reputation, superiority, market leadership, impact, or public recognition.

Those claims should normally be supported by independent evidence.

Press releases

Press releases are first-party or promotional materials unless there is a clear reason to treat them otherwise.

They may be used to verify that an organization made a particular announcement, but they should not normally be used as independent evidence that the announcement is important.

A press release reproduced by another website without meaningful independent reporting remains promotional material.

When possible, prefer independent reporting about the announcement.

News publications

News coverage can be a strong source when the publication has identifiable editorial standards and the article contains substantive reporting.

Editors should consider:

• Whether the publication is established
• Whether the author is identifiable
• Whether the article contains original reporting
• Whether sources are clearly attributed
• Whether the publication has editorial oversight
• Whether the article is primarily informational rather than promotional

A publication's reputation should be considered together with the specific article being cited.

Industry and trade publications

Industry publications can be valuable for specialized subjects.

They may provide stronger technical or professional detail than general news publications.

Editors should consider whether the publication has:

• Recognized expertise in the field
• Editorial oversight
• Independent reporting
• Transparent authorship
• A clear distinction between editorial and sponsored content

Trade publications connected financially to the subject should be treated with additional caution.

Academic sources

Academic journals, university publications, research papers, and scholarly books may be particularly valuable for:

• Scientific subjects
• Historical claims
• Technical subjects
• Academic biographies
• Medical or research-related topics
• Social and economic analysis

Where academic sources disagree, articles should accurately represent the state of the published research rather than selecting only one position.

Government and official records

Government and regulatory sources can be strong sources for official facts, including:

• Company registration
• Public office
• Laws and regulations
• Court decisions
• Government appointments
• Licenses
• Regulatory actions
• Official statistics
• Geographic and administrative information

An official record may verify a specific fact, but it does not necessarily establish that a subject deserves a standalone article.

For example, company registration confirms that a company exists, but registration alone does not establish meaningful public relevance.

Databases and directories

Established databases may be useful for specific factual information.

Examples can include:

• Government databases
• Academic databases
• Professional registries
• Corporate registries
• Library catalogs
• Recognized industry databases

General business directories, profile aggregators, automatically generated websites, and user-submitted databases should normally be treated as weaker sources.

Their usefulness depends on how the information is collected and verified.

Social media

Social media should generally not be used as the main source for significant claims.

An official or verified account may sometimes support simple statements about what a person or organization publicly announced.

Social media should not normally be used to establish:

• Importance
• Reputation
• Notability
• Financial success
• Professional standing
• Public impact
• Controversial claims about third parties

Posts from anonymous, unofficial, fan, or unverified accounts should be treated with particular caution.

User-generated content

User-generated content is generally weak sourcing for encyclopedia claims.

Examples include:

• Open forums
• Comments
• Personal blogs
• Unverified profile pages
• Community-submitted directories
• Anonymous websites
• Question-and-answer platforms
• Social media discussions

Such material may occasionally help editors discover better sources, but it should generally not be relied upon as the final evidence for important factual claims.

Sponsored and paid content

Sponsored articles, advertorials, paid placements, branded content, and commercially commissioned profiles should be clearly distinguished from independent editorial coverage.

Sponsored material may sometimes verify simple first-party information, but it should not normally be treated as independent evidence of importance or reputation.

Editors should look for additional independent sources whenever sponsored content is involved.

Source quantity and source quality

A large number of weak sources does not automatically equal strong sourcing.

For example, ten websites repeating the same press release may represent only one underlying source.

Editors should focus on:

• Independence
• Reliability
• Depth of coverage
• Originality
• Relevance
• Editorial quality

A smaller number of strong independent sources may be more useful than many low-quality references.

Source independence

Editors should consider whether apparently separate sources are genuinely independent.

Several articles may originate from:

• The same press release
• The same news agency report
• Syndicated content
• The same interview
• The same corporate announcement
• Rewritten promotional material

When multiple publications repeat substantially the same underlying material, they should not automatically be treated as multiple independent sources.

Matching sources to claims

A citation should support the statement immediately associated with it.

Avoid using a source for claims it does not actually make.

For example, a source confirming that a company was founded in 2018 should not automatically be cited for a claim that the company is a leading company in its industry.

The wording of the article should not be stronger than the evidence in the source.

Citing sources

References should be placed near the claims they support.

Basic WikiPartner citation format:

The company was founded in 2020.<ref>https://example.com/source</ref>

Include a references section near the bottom of the article:

== References ==

<references />

Where possible, provide enough information for readers to identify the source.

Broken or inaccessible sources

A source should not automatically be removed just because its original URL no longer works.

Editors may look for:

• Archived versions
• Updated URLs
• Copies from the original publisher
• Replacement sources supporting the same information

However, a citation should not be retained indefinitely if there is no reasonable way to verify the underlying claim.

Conflicting sources

Reliable sources sometimes disagree.

When this happens, editors should not silently choose whichever source they prefer.

Consider:

• Which source is more recent
• Which source is closer to the original information
• Which source has stronger editorial standards
• Whether the sources are discussing different definitions or time periods
• Whether the disagreement itself is relevant to the article

Where appropriate, the article may describe the disagreement with clear attribution.

Sensitive and controversial claims

Claims that may seriously affect the reputation of a person or organization require particular care.

Examples include allegations involving:

• Criminal conduct
• Fraud
• Misconduct
• Corruption
• Professional wrongdoing
• Serious disputes
• Legal accusations

Such information should be supported by strong, reliable sources and written with precise attribution.

Unverified accusations, rumors, anonymous claims, and unsupported allegations should not be included.

Sources that should generally be avoided

Editors should normally avoid relying on:

• Anonymous websites with no clear editorial responsibility
• Content farms
• Automatically generated articles
• Scraped content
• Unverified social media posts
• Promotional directories
• Spam websites
• Sites that copy other publications without attribution
• Clearly fabricated content
• AI-generated pages without identifiable editorial verification
• Sources that do not support the claim being made

Artificial intelligence and generated content

AI-generated text should not itself be treated as a reliable source.

Search engines, chatbots, AI summaries, AI Overviews, and other generated answers may help editors discover potential sources, but the underlying sources should be checked directly.

A factual claim should be supported by the original or reliable published source rather than by an AI-generated summary of that source.

Wikipedia and other encyclopedias

Wikipedia, WikiPartner, and other collaboratively edited encyclopedias may be useful starting points for research, but they should not normally be used as the primary source for factual claims.

Editors should follow the references provided by those articles and verify the information from the underlying sources.

Self-published experts

Material published directly by a recognized expert may sometimes be useful within that person's established area of expertise.

Such material should be used cautiously and should not normally support claims about third parties when stronger independent sources are available.

Source evaluation is contextual

There is no universal list dividing every publication into "reliable" or "unreliable."

A source may be appropriate for one claim and inappropriate for another.

Editors should consider:

• Who published it
• Who wrote it
• Why it was published
• What evidence it provides
• Whether it is independent
• Whether it has editorial oversight
• Whether better sources are available

Article suggestions

People submitting an article suggestion should provide reliable sources whenever possible.

Providing sources does not guarantee that a suggestion will be approved.

Reviewers should evaluate both the quality of the sources and the amount of meaningful coverage available.

Related policies

• Inclusion guidelines
• Editorial policy
• Suggest an article
• Corrections and complaints
• Editing help