 | This is an
essay on
interviews and notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. |
Introduction
The intention of this essay is to explain why interviews are both primary and non-independent sources for subjects associated with the interviewee and therefore cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent sourcing. For example, when John Smith is interviewed, it is not an independent source for the article about John Smith.
What does Wikipedia say about interviews?
Wikipedia:Interviews is an essay that discusses interviews and sums it up by saying: Interviews are usually primary sources, but may be secondary sources or a mixture of the two. Interviews may be published in reliable publications, or may be self-published or advertisements.
The important part of that essay is in the section
Primary or secondary? where it says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.
Outside of essays, one place where interviews are specifically called out are at the policy
Wikipedia:No original research which says in note (d) at the bottom of the page "Further examples of primary sources include: ...editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews..."
So they're sometimes primary sources, and that's specifically when they're discussing themselves or something related to themselves. But aside from the essay above, what guideline or policy covers whether a primary source is independent? We have to go back to
Wikipedia:No original research for that, and specifically to
WP:PRIMARY, which says that "Primary sources may or may not be independent sources."
so it's not a black and white "all interviews are non-independent." However the context of the interview is important.
Wikipedia:Independent sources says "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views."
So going by that, John Smith being interviewed cannot not an independent source for an article on John Smith, because an interview is literally his own views.
For interviews where the article's subject is the one being interviewed, they are non-independent sources. If The Daily Planet interviews John Smith, the relevant content from that interview is coming directly from John Smith, who frames the content and the answers exactly how he wants; he controls the content. As a person is obviously not independent of themselves, an interview where John Smith speaks is not independent of the article for John Smith, especially if he's speaking about himself or things closely associated with him. This is a situation where an interview is not an independent source.
When is an interview independent?
There are times where sources will interview someone who has no direct connection to the topic and is being interviewed because (for example) he is an expert in a given field, and this would be an example of a time where an interview is an independent source. If an economist is being interviewed about Tesla stock performance, that interview is an independent source for Tesla if the expert being interviewed has no connection to Tesla itself.
External resources
| This is an
essay on
interviews and notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. |
Introduction
The intention of this essay is to explain why interviews are both primary and non-independent sources for subjects associated with the interviewee and therefore cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent sourcing. For example, when John Smith is interviewed, it is not an independent source for the article about John Smith.
What does Wikipedia say about interviews?
Wikipedia:Interviews is an essay that discusses interviews and sums it up by saying: Interviews are usually primary sources, but may be secondary sources or a mixture of the two. Interviews may be published in reliable publications, or may be self-published or advertisements.
The important part of that essay is in the section
Primary or secondary? where it says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.
Outside of essays, one place where interviews are specifically called out are at the policy
Wikipedia:No original research which says in note (d) at the bottom of the page "Further examples of primary sources include: ...editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews..."
So they're sometimes primary sources, and that's specifically when they're discussing themselves or something related to themselves. But aside from the essay above, what guideline or policy covers whether a primary source is independent? We have to go back to
Wikipedia:No original research for that, and specifically to
WP:PRIMARY, which says that "Primary sources may or may not be independent sources."
so it's not a black and white "all interviews are non-independent." However the context of the interview is important.
Wikipedia:Independent sources says "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views."
So going by that, John Smith being interviewed cannot not an independent source for an article on John Smith, because an interview is literally his own views.
For interviews where the article's subject is the one being interviewed, they are non-independent sources. If The Daily Planet interviews John Smith, the relevant content from that interview is coming directly from John Smith, who frames the content and the answers exactly how he wants; he controls the content. As a person is obviously not independent of themselves, an interview where John Smith speaks is not independent of the article for John Smith, especially if he's speaking about himself or things closely associated with him. This is a situation where an interview is not an independent source.
When is an interview independent?
There are times where sources will interview someone who has no direct connection to the topic and is being interviewed because (for example) he is an expert in a given field, and this would be an example of a time where an interview is an independent source. If an economist is being interviewed about Tesla stock performance, that interview is an independent source for Tesla if the expert being interviewed has no connection to Tesla itself.