Wikipedia Source References: Criteria for Citations
Notability is the most important criterion for a Wikipedia article, good references to support statements in the Wikipedia article are a close second in importance. Wikipedia’s reliability comes from its strict rules about sources. The platform stands apart by just needing credible references that match specific standards. Anyone who wants to use or contribute to the encyclopedia should know these criteria well.
Verifiability and traceability of claims
The life-blood of Wikipedia’s content policies lies in verifiability. Readers should check independently that information comes from reliable sources, but who has time? Well, Wikipedia editors do. Many marketers become upset when they learn that Wikipedia doesn’t accept original research. It simply presents existing knowledge from reputable sources in encyclopedia format. Eliminating original research means subjects must rely instead on third-party’s to get the story right.
Editorial oversight and fact-checking standards
Multiple layers of editorial oversight make Wikipedia (somewhat, but not totally) reliable. Individual editors add content while the community uses its own infrastructure to maintain quality.
Sources need strong editorial processes. A source’s reliability depends on:
- How many people check facts
- The reviewers’ expertise
- Legal review thoroughness
- The publication’s reputation for fact-checking
This often means that highly trafficked and important pages get more scrutiny than less trafficked ones.
Quality publications show these standards through correction policies, editorial freedom, and proven fact-checking systems. To name just one example, Der Spiegel employs about eighty full-time fact-checkers – more than any other publication.
A 2002 IBM study revealed something interesting: editors fix most vandalism on English Wikipedia within five minutes. This quick response shows how well community oversight works.
Why neutrality and independence matter
Everything in source reliability starts with independence and neutrality. Sources must have editorial freedom and no conflicts of interest. This independence lets sources assess subjects fairly.
Independent sources become more important when:
- Proving a subject’s notability
- Checking the growing problem of controversial claims
- Showing balanced views on disputed topics
Articles become biased without independent sources. Wikipedia’s policy makes it clear: “articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources”. Sources with stakes in the subject naturally think it deserves coverage, which creates bias.
Neutral point of view (NPOV) means articles must cover all major viewpoints fairly. Sources should either show balance or clearly label their opinions. Editorial content must stay separate from factual reporting.
Verifiability, editorial oversight, and neutrality work together. These principles create a system that makes Wikipedia more reliable despite being volunteer-driven. Anyone looking at Wikipedia sources should understand how these factors ensure accuracy while keeping content objective.
Examples of Reliable vs Unreliable Sources on Wikipedia
Anyone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia must know which sources they can trust. Not every published work meets Wikipedia’s standards. A good grasp of specific examples helps you find your way through the maze of solid references.
Reliable: The New York Times, peer-reviewed journals, BBC
Wikipedia’s own review shows The New York Times as one of the world’s most respected news sources. The Times ranks as the second most cited news source on Wikipedia, with only BBC ahead. The newspaper’s strong editorial oversight and record-keeping make it a cornerstone of Wikipedia’s verification policy.
Peer-reviewed scientific journals stand just as high on the trust scale, especially for science and medical content. Top medical sources include the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, and BMJ. Science and Nature lead the pack of general scholarly publications. These journals earn their reliability through expert review of research before it goes to print.
The BBC stands out as Wikipedia’s most cited news source. Its commitment to fact-checking and editorial excellence makes it a go-to source for facts in many topics.
Unreliable: Press releases, company blogs, social media posts
Press releases serve as primary sources that push an organization’s agenda. They might contain official statements, but they paint information in the company’s favor. Wikipedia editors usually skip press releases except to check basic company facts like revenue numbers.
Company websites and blogs lack independence as sources. You can use them to check simple facts, but they can’t prove notability or back promotional claims. Take a CEO interview on a company blog – it’s just a primary source with built-in bias.
Social media and user-generated content don’t make the cut as sources. Search results often show sites like Quora and Reddit, but they lack proper fact-checking. User-generated sites don’t meet Wikipedia’s reliability bar.
Comparison of Reliable and Unreliable Sources
| Reliable Sources | Unreliable Sources |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed journals – Research validated by experts in the field | Personal blogs – Often contain opinions without fact-checking |
| Academic publications – From established educational institutions | Social media posts – Can spread misinformation quickly with limited accountability |
| Government publications – Official statistics and reports | Tabloid newspapers – Focus on sensationalism over accuracy |
| Reputable news organizations – Follow journalistic standards | Websites with no clear authorship – No accountability for content |
| Primary research studies – Direct data collection with documented methodology | Websites with heavy advertising – May prioritize clicks over accuracy |
| Books from established publishers – Undergo editorial review | Anonymous online forums – Lack verification processes |
| Reports from recognized organizations – WHO, UN, etc. | Sites with clear political/ideological bias – May present one-sided information |
| Educational websites (.edu domains) – Content from educational institutions | Commercial sites with vested interests – May present biased information to promote products |
| Professional or scientific organizations – Content reviewed by experts | Sources with outdated information – May no longer be accurate |
| Fact-checking websites – Dedicated to verifying claims | Sources with no citations – Claims without supporting evidence |
| Publications with transparent editorial processes – Clear standards for publication | Content claiming “secret information” – Often conspiracy theories |
| Sources with comprehensive bibliographies – Show research depth | Websites mimicking legitimate sources – Designed to mislead |
Sites You May Be Surprised May Be Considered Unreliable
Based on Wikipedia’s “Potentially unreliable sources” list and others, here are some sites that might surprise many people that may not be considered reliable as sources:
- h2g2 – Despite previously being hosted by the BBC, it’s user-generated content and not considered reliable.
- BBC Music – Surprisingly, the artist biographies are typically taken directly from Wikipedia, creating a circular reference issue.
- FantasticFiction.co.uk – Used on thousands of Wikipedia articles about books, but considered unreliable as it’s a commercial site with no clear editorial oversight.
- Answers.com – As you mentioned, this is considered unreliable.
- WiseGeek.com – Described as a “content farm” that pays writers to produce “breezy, popular interest pieces with no footnotes.”
- Google Groups/Usenet – Despite being operated by Google, these forums are considered unreliable as they’re primarily user-generated content with little editorial control.
- Some scholarly journals that might surprise people:
- Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
- Medical Hypotheses (non-peer reviewed)
- Energy & Environment
- Mankind Quarterly
- Fan sites – Even those that appear professionally made or contain scans of original sources are generally not considered reliable.
Gray area: Trade journals and local news sites
Some sources sit between clearly reliable and unreliable, needing careful judgment. Trade journals offer valuable industry insights but might lean too close to the industries they cover. Good editors look at:
- Editorial independence
- Track record in fact-checking
- Writer expertise
- Balance between promotional and factual content
Local news sources work well for regional stories. Student newspapers from universities can reliably cover their schools and communities. Professional sources take priority when available.
Source reliability depends heavily on context. A typically unreliable source might nail specific facts. Even the best sources sometimes make mistakes or pull stories back. Success comes from knowing both a source’s overall reputation and the specific content it shares.
How Notability and Source Reliability Work Together
Notability and source reliability are the foundations of Wikipedia. These two concepts started as separate ideas but now work together. They determine if a topic deserves its own article and what information belongs in it.
Why notability requires substantial coverage
Wikipedia’s notability isn’t about how important something is—it’s about verifiable evidence of attention from the wider world. A subject must have “substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject” to be notable. Wikipedia needs these objective standards rather than personal opinions about what matters.
What makes coverage “substantial”? Wikipedia’s guidelines say substantial coverage:
- Addresses the topic directly and in detail
- Contains enough substance that no original research is needed
- Provides more than a trivial mention
- Doesn’t need to be the main focus of the source
A single sentence about a person or organization rarely qualifies as substantial. Multiple reliable sources must devote real attention to a subject—maybe even multiple paragraphs or entire articles—before it meets notability standards.
How reliable sources establish notability
Reliable sources need specific qualities to establish notability. These sources should be:
- Multiple and independent – One source almost never establishes notability
- Secondary – Third parties with no vested interest must write these sources
- Reliable – Sources need editorial oversight and fact-checking standards
- Substantial – Coverage must provide meaningful context
A subject becomes notable when independent reliable sources cover it extensively. News articles about corporate controversies, scholarly publications dissecting state-of-the-art developments, or books analyzing historical events can all establish notability.
Reliable sources aren’t automatically notable themselves. A famous tabloid might be notable for all the wrong reasons but still fails as a reliable source. Sources that promote—press releases, company websites, or subject interviews—can’t establish notability whatever their publication venue.
Example: NYT article as both reliable and notable
The New York Times shows how reliability and notability work together. NYT articles serve as reliable references that verify facts, making it one of Wikipedia’s most cited sources. Getting featured in the NYT often helps establish a subject’s notability too.
The largest longitudinal study shows when a CEO gets extensive coverage in a NYT feature article, it proves notability because:
- The NYT follows strict editorial standards, making it reliable
- The coverage stays independent of the subject
- The article offers detailed information about the subject
- The NYT’s credibility as a notable publication speaks for itself
That same article becomes a reliable source other editors can cite in the Wikipedia article. Yet a brief mention of the CEO in an article about something else wouldn’t pass the “substantial coverage” test.
This relationship works like this: substantial coverage in reliable sources creates notability, then those same reliable sources provide verifiable information for the article’s content.
Common Mistakes and Conflict of Interest Pitfalls
Wikipedia editors make predictable mistakes when choosing sources for articles. These errors usually happen because of conflict of interest (COI)—editors have relationships with the article subject that go against Wikipedia’s core principles.
Staff Writers vs. Contributors
Staff writers are far more reliable than contributors in the eyes of Wikipedia editors.
Staff writers represent the publication’s editorial voice and undergo rigorous hiring processes, regular editorial oversight, and fact-checking procedures that maintain consistent quality standards. Unlike contributors, who often work independently with minimal supervision and may bring personal agendas or promotional motives to their writing, staff writers are professionally accountable to their employers and bound by established journalistic standards.
At Forbes, for example, content from staff writers undergoes comprehensive editorial review and must adhere to strict journalistic protocols, while contributor content receives significantly less scrutiny and may prioritize opinion over fact.
Using interviews or quotes from the subject
Q&A format interviews and podcast appearances create problems in Wikipedia articles. Reputable outlets might publish them, but these count as primary sources instead of independent secondary sources. Wikipedia believes that unfiltered interviews aren’t subject to the same journalistic vetting or editorial review as written articles.
This restriction makes sense—people’s own words lack the independence needed to prove notability or verify controversial claims. Their personal views in interviews tend to present facts that make them look good, which doesn’t work for encyclopedia articles that must stay neutral.
Citing company websites or personal blogs = No
Bias runs through company websites, press releases, and personal blogs, making them primary sources. You can use them to check simple facts like where a company’s headquarters is or when it started, but they can’t prove notability or back up evaluative claims.
Companies always share information that helps their cause—they talk up successes and minimize problems. Wikipedia’s rules say these sources work for:
- Annual revenue figures
- Physical headquarters location
- Parent/subsidiary relationships
- Basic product listings
Yet they can’t support claims about market standing, quality comparisons, or analysis of company decisions. Content that sounds promotional breaks Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy.
Anonymous client example: CEO interview rejected as primary source
A marketing team once tried to use their CEO’s lengthy interview from a business magazine as the main source for their Wikipedia page. The magazine had a good reputation, but Wikipedia editors said no because the CEO’s statements were primary source material.
The interview showed the executive’s thoughts about industry problems and company achievements—exactly what needs independent verification. Wikipedia wants facts about living people to come from sources with editorial oversight, not straight from the people themselves. We can tell you from personal experience how upset CEO’s get when they learn this!
Using sources with only passing mentions
Sources that briefly mention the subject cause another common problem. The notability guideline clearly states that “trivial mentions” don’t cut it. Take a newspaper article about a politician that says “In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.” This quick reference doesn’t make the band notable.
Good coverage needs to talk about the subject directly and thoroughly—usually with two or more paragraphs focused on the topic. Without this depth, Wikipedia editors will likely decide the source doesn’t prove notability or support meaningful content.
How to Choose the Right Sources for Your Article
Quality sources are the foundations of trustworthy Wikipedia contributions. A systematic way to work with Wikipedia’s detailed guidelines on source reliability helps you tell good references from questionable ones.
Checklist for evaluating a source
Before you cite any source in your Wikipedia article, here’s a simplified evaluation checklist based on Wikipedia’s official recommendation:
Let’s take a closer look at the material the source supports:
- Does anyone dispute the content?
- Does the source actually back up what’s being claimed?
The author’s background matters too:
- What kind of academic and professional background do they have?
- How do they make their living? (This shows possible biases)
- Do other reliable sources mention this author?
- Is the author a staff writer or just a contributor?
The publication needs a close look:
- Do they use peer review or fact-checking?
- What’s their reach and standing?
- Do they have business reasons to be accurate?
- Does the publication have a Wikipedia article? This helps.
This well-laid-out approach helps you figure out if a source meets Wikipedia’s citation standards.
Using the Wikipedia:Perennial sources list
Wikipedia’s “Perennial sources list” helps editors by grouping frequently discussed sources based on what the community thinks about them. The list has four main categories:
- Generally reliable: Independent sources known to fact-check
- Marginally reliable: Sources you can use in specific cases
- Generally unreliable: Sources you should usually avoid
- Deprecated: Sources that Wikipedia typically bans
Even prominent news outlets sometimes mix regular news with sponsored content. The Anti-Defamation League’s downgrade to “generally unreliable” in 2024 for its Israeli-Palestinian conflict coverage shows how context shapes reliability.
When to use attribution for biased sources
Sometimes you’ll need sources that have known biases. Attribution becomes vital to keep things neutral in these cases.
Here’s what to do with potentially biased sources:
- Check if the source meets basic reliability standards
- Add in-text attribution to show different viewpoints
- Make it clear what’s opinion and what’s fact
A good example: Instead of “Climate change is a hoax,” write “According to the conservative think tank X, climate change is a hoax”.
Good attribution lets readers see where statements come from, especially on controversial topics. This approach helps Wikipedia show different viewpoints while staying neutral.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Understanding Wikipedia Notability, References, and Reliable Sources
What is “notability” on Wikipedia?
Notability is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. A topic is considered notable if it has received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. This means third-party publications must have written about the topic in-depth—not just passing mentions or listings.
Why are good references so important on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia’s credibility depends on verifiability. Statements on Wikipedia must be backed by sources that are reliable, neutral, and independent. Without these, articles can be removed, downgraded, or never approved at all.
What makes a source “reliable” for Wikipedia?
A reliable source:
- Has editorial oversight and fact-checking
- Comes from an independent publisher (not affiliated with the subject)
- Has a reputation for accuracy (e.g., The New York Times, BBC, peer-reviewed journals)
Examples of reliable sources include:
- The Wall Street Journal
- The New York Times
- Nature, Science
- Government and academic (.edu) publications
Which sources are not reliable?
Wikipedia editors generally reject the following:
- Press releases (e.g., AccessWire, PR Newswire)
- Company websites or blogs
- Social media posts
- User-generated content (Reddit, Quora)
- Fan sites or content farms (e.g., WiseGeek, FantasticFiction)
Even some scholarly journals are considered unreliable if they lack peer review or present biased viewpoints (e.g., Medical Hypotheses, Mankind Quarterly).
Are interviews, podcasts, or company profiles usable?
These are primary sources and are not considered independent. Wikipedia requires secondary sources that analyze or discuss the subject from an outside perspective. A CEO’s quote in a Q&A format—even in a reputable publication—cannot be used to establish notability.
Can I use contributor content from Forbes, HuffPost, or Medium?
Usually not. Contributor articles often lack editorial oversight and are considered less reliable than staff-written content. Wikipedia prefers sources authored by professional journalists who follow strict editorial standards.
What qualifies as “substantial coverage”?
Substantial coverage means:
- The subject is discussed in detail (not just mentioned)
- The source does not rely on the subject’s own materials
- Coverage is deep enough that no original research is needed
Example: A multi-paragraph profile in The New York Times qualifies. A one-line mention in a list of award winners does not.
How do notability and source reliability work together?
Reliable sources are the building blocks of Wikipedia articles. When those sources provide in-depth coverage, they establish a subject’s notability. This dual role is essential: a source must be both credible and sufficiently detailed.
What’s the Wikipedia “Perennial sources list”?
It’s a community-maintained list that categorizes commonly cited sources as:
- Generally reliable
- Marginally reliable
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated
The list helps editors quickly assess whether a source is appropriate for citation.
What’s the risk of using biased or non-independent sources?
Using biased sources can lead to:
- Rejected edits
- Deletion of articles
- Reputation damage from promotional content violations
If you must use a potentially biased source, attribute it clearly (e.g., “According to X…”).
What are the most common mistakes editors make?
- Relying on press releases or self-published content
- Using only primary sources
- Citing interviews or podcasts without secondary analysis
- Overestimating notability from trivial mentions
- Ignoring staff vs. contributor authorship differences
Tags: Wikipedia, Wikipedia Writing.
