 | This is an
essay. 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. |
Many times arguments erupt over whether a particular source is "reliable" for use in making specific claims in articles.
This essay proposes that reliability of any source may well hinge on the nature of the claim being made.
Horses for courses is an old aphorism that a specific racehorse may perform differently depending on the precise course on which the race is held. The precept here is that the same is true of reliable sources on Wikipedia.
A claim which falls within the normal topic area for a peer-reviewed journal would certainly be deemed as from a "reliable source" but where the claim is unrelated to the primary expertise of the source, its use may be less well-suited for claims.
This is even more evident for material not from peer-reviewed sources - many newspapers may be exceedingly reliable for certain facts, but may be known for being less reliable on celebrity news or other topics which may be less likely to have been fact checked before publication, or where particular editorial stances may be reasonably seen as affecting the reliability of statements of fact.
The nature of any claim in an article may suggest that certain sources be used or avoided, depending on which areas are deemed to be strengths or weaknesses. This does not mean that all such sources should be ignored, especially where they provide different points of view on a topic, issue or person than other sources provide.
Lastly, this does not affect the use of clear opinions on any topic where such opinions are given due weight and ascribed as such.
See also:
and essays
| This is an
essay. 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. |
Many times arguments erupt over whether a particular source is "reliable" for use in making specific claims in articles.
This essay proposes that reliability of any source may well hinge on the nature of the claim being made.
Horses for courses is an old aphorism that a specific racehorse may perform differently depending on the precise course on which the race is held. The precept here is that the same is true of reliable sources on Wikipedia.
A claim which falls within the normal topic area for a peer-reviewed journal would certainly be deemed as from a "reliable source" but where the claim is unrelated to the primary expertise of the source, its use may be less well-suited for claims.
This is even more evident for material not from peer-reviewed sources - many newspapers may be exceedingly reliable for certain facts, but may be known for being less reliable on celebrity news or other topics which may be less likely to have been fact checked before publication, or where particular editorial stances may be reasonably seen as affecting the reliability of statements of fact.
The nature of any claim in an article may suggest that certain sources be used or avoided, depending on which areas are deemed to be strengths or weaknesses. This does not mean that all such sources should be ignored, especially where they provide different points of view on a topic, issue or person than other sources provide.
Lastly, this does not affect the use of clear opinions on any topic where such opinions are given due weight and ascribed as such.
See also:
and essays