506:
websites, blogs, Knowledge, and messages on Usenet and
Internet message boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no independent entity stands between the author and publication; the material may not have been subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is usually not acceptable as a reliable source, with some
238:
databases, such as citation indexes and census surveys, are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in
Knowledge, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
34:
391:—If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become
70:
1173:
For example, an original plot summary is acceptable, because it merely summarizes the narrative and provides background for understanding the attributed critical and interpretive material that the article should contain. Condensing a complex theory into a few paragraphs is good writing, not original
487:
is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns,
208:
This is why the exception for dubious and self-published sources requires that they be used in
Knowledge articles largely written from sources independent of the subject. If there are no independent sources on a subject, Knowledge should not have an article on it. It doesn't matter whether the crank
177:
A fundamental threshold for inclusion in
Knowledge is whether material can be reliably attributed—and this is independent of whether any individual editor holds it to be true. In particular, material that an editor believes to be true but that cannot be attributed to a reliable source should not be
1085:
Redundant prose attributions may be excised for clarity; it is not necessary to prepend "according to..." to every place that a controversial source is cited. Where multiple sources state the same thing, a generic prose attribution, such as "According to numerous scientists...", may be used. Prose
399:
These issues are particularly pertinent to
Knowledge where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.
271:
are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A theologian's account of what the Bible says is a secondary source. A sociologist thesis based on his research of
181:
Wikipedians, as such, should not claim expertise; we cannot decide the truth in any field. But we can follow the consensus of experts. In some subjects, this consensus is likely to be the truth; in others, it is the best information available. Where experts disagree, all we can do is accurately
173:
Wikipedians do care about the truth, but we are mindful of our own limitations. We want to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and by insisting on the use of reliable sources, we depend on the published research and opinions of informed commentators. Editors should ensure that all majority and
1048:
Prose attributions have the effect of distancing
Knowledge from a particular statement. Rather than conveying the message that Knowledge endorses the statement, a prose attribution conveys the message that Knowledge merely acknowledges that the named source has indeed made the statement. Prose
505:
is material, online or in print, that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. The expression "self-published source" may also refer to the author of the material. Personal
237:
are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is a primary source. Parts of the Bible are primary sources. The White House's summary of a George Bush speech is a primary source. Publicly available
276:
analysis of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. Knowledge articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of
Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for
407:
is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the
383:—Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age of the source.
837:: MySpace is generally not acceptable even as a self-published source, because most of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. If the identity of the author can be confirmed in a reliable, published source, then it can be used with the caution appropriate to a self-published source.
1139:
is our source, not the website that is hosting a copy of it. It is important to be sure that the link offers a true copy of the original. Sites regarded as inherently unreliable, such as extremist websites or attack sites, should usually not be used for convenience links.
843:: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as
603:
and the talkback section of weblogs are not regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.
434:
is an unnamed person or a work created by an unnamed author. Anonymous sources are not acceptable in
Knowledge, because we can't attribute the viewpoint to its author. Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as
375:—If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
250:
archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded
565:, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the
464:
is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest
1166:, articles must consist mostly of original prose. However, the ideas, facts, and arguments must have been published already by a reliable source. (Information may be copied verbatim from sources that are licensed under the
294:
Where a self-published source in an article about itself disagrees with a majority view in reliable sources, the self-published source may be used to demonstrate the author's opinion, so long as doing so is consistent with
572:
Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is
454:
is one that is not publicly available, or that has been distributed only through anonymous channels or forums, and for which a publisher cannot be identified. Unpublished sources may never be used as sources on
1064:
precise than a page, and independent of edition. Again, the following describes the sources precisely; whether it is brilliant prose, and how much of it should be put into footnotes, are editorial decisions:
359:). Note that some of a publication's content, such as Op-ed pieces, commentary, announcements, advertising, etc., may have little or no editorial oversight, and could be treated as self-published material.
342:
such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g.
904:
Don't let complicated citation structures prevent you from adding a source: if you don't know how to format the citation, provide as much information as you can, and others may fix it for you. Cite it!
367:—A source that is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions my be more reliable than one that does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
331:
Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources. Note that these are not hard rules, and that sources needs to be always evaluated in the context of the article's subject:
311:
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand:
585:). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.
531:
One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is
328:
Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.
205:
to any side, more weight than its support would warrant. In extreme cases, where the crank theory is rejected or ignored by all relevant, reliable sources, due weight may be no mention at all.
831:: Transcripts of chatroom sessions are not reliable sources because they are unpublished, and we have no way of knowing who the authors are. Transcripts are also easily forged or altered.
889:
Quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable source using an inline citation. This can be in the form of an embedded link, a
1073:(Reliable Press, 2005) that inline citations aren't always needed, while George Gordon completely disagrees in a lengthy essay ("Paging Smith") published in the June 2005 issue of
1086:
attributions that overstate the support for a position, which engage in value judgements, or which constitute ambiguous or unfalsifiable "weasel words" should be avoided (See
182:
report the debate, with the strengths and weaknesses of all sides. As human knowledge improves, and
Knowledge incorporates more of it, Knowledge will become more accurate.
178:
included in
Knowledge. Articles should simply present reliably attributed statements, views, and arguments, and then allow our readers to judge truth for themselves.
395:. Some web resources have editorial policies that lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should include the date in which the source was retrieved.
666:
software that underlies Knowledge, incorporate a feature allowing one to link directly to a version of a page as it existed some time in the past. To illustrate,
198:. If there is in fact a widespread conflict between two points of view, we have to include both of them, so long as reliable sources have written about them.
1237:
259:
experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
492:, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see
1174:
research, provided that the theory is described as accurately as a reasonable article length and the needs of an audience of non-specialists will permit.
623:
are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the
541:, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of
1032:
for sources. A prose attribution is the explicit ascription of an assertion to a source in the article's text. For example, (taken from the article
1013:
1053:
policy, they should also be used whenever a statement is controversial, disputed, widely believed to be false, or concerns a matter of opinion.
209:
has started a website, written a self-published book, or bought a publishing house: if no-one else has taken note of his theory, why should we?
174:
significant-minority opinions are included in articles, in rough proportion to the representation of those views in reliable published sources.
338:—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.
528:
are almost never regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.
1232:
134:, answering questions and offering examples that illustrate key aspects of the policy. If you don't find your question here, post it on
1010:
All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately.
861:
285:
are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Knowledge is a tertiary source.
201:
This does not mean we have to include crankery in general. One of the chief requirements of neutrality is that Knowledge may not give
92:
49:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
994:
tags to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
191:
153:
to a reliable, published source; that is, a reliable, published source must exist for it. If none does, the material is regarded as
77:
50:
1050:
632:
300:
638:
Despite the above, some wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are in fact intended to be reliable sources. Notably the
88:
1121:
might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the Internet, as follows:
87:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
890:
646:
projects, which provide notable documents in the public domain and copyleft, and events in day-to-day news, respectively.
1087:
920:
1099:
898:
852:
851:
if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a
478:
by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority, as the original cannot be used to validate the reference.
404:
1056:
In general, prose attributions are not precise enough to replace formal citations, although there are exceptions:
682:, specify both the date of the page revision you are citing and the date you retrieved that revision, as follows:
1227:
1005:, remove it from the article, and do not move it to the talk page, particularly if it concerns a living person.
959:
879:
436:
272:
primary sources is a secondary source. A journalist analysis of a traffic accident, is a secondary source.A
445:, are acceptable, because Knowledge's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source.
1207:
532:
1117:
1044:
for providing the intellectual foundations for the revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century.
628:
507:
493:
143:
135:
131:
124:
115:
105:
17:
1081:
repeats Smith's arguments, but adds, in a note on page 45, that "Gordon has completely convinced me."
866:
620:
190:
It may sometimes be necessary to include views that one side of a debate regards as cranky. We have
1041:
783:
441:
412:
212:
For further information on this issue, including several examples of past community decisions, see
84:
54:
894:
489:
671:
627:, which might be worth importing into Knowledge, but once imported, the material is subject to
802:
679:
296:
217:
113:
Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought: all material published by Knowledge must be
1188:
1112:
to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to
1049:
attributions should be used to introduce direct quotations, and to credit a source. Per the
848:
356:
213:
42:
1193:
1033:
1017:
814:
202:
1159:
Original writing is desirable; it is original ideas and viewpoints that violate policy.
1104:
A convenience link is a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the Internet, offered
1183:
1167:
1163:
1109:
844:
256:
195:
108:
a proposed merger of several core Knowledge policy pages that did not gain a consensus.
1221:
1154:
1057:
978:
930:
856:
655:
589:
582:
566:
546:
344:
154:
57:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
988:
940:
675:
574:
403:
In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.
252:
1131:, originally published 1776, this edition Methuen and Co, 1904, ed. Edwin Cannan.
186:
Does this mean we have to include every crank view that can get itself published?
1040:
According to Harry Girvetz and Kenneth Minogue, Friedman is co-responsible with
1113:
639:
290:
What if a self-published source disagrees with a third-party reliable source?
663:
659:
616:
600:
578:
537:
426:
Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Knowledge:
119:
to a reliable published source. The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is
678:, and will reference that individual revision indefinitely. When using the
1212:, Encyclopedia Britannica (online), p. 16, retrieved May 16, 2006 (Sample)
161:, but attribution is required for quotations and for any material that is
643:
315:
Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
913:
While any edit lacking attribution may be removed, the best practice is
1149:
Will rewriting source material violate the NOR provision of the policy?
840:
834:
701:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Encyclopedia&oldid=118386243
562:
318:
Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
662:
feature common on wiki software. Common wiki platforms, including the
324:
Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;
588:
Blogs must never be used as secondary sources on living persons; see
558:
525:
157:
and should be removed. In reality, not all material must actually be
561:("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as
1126:
962:
the use of in-line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:
1162:
In order to avoid copyright violation and be licensed under the
624:
612:
828:
64:
28:
897:. The level of citation to strive for is exemplified by the
654:
linking to a wiki page—for example, if the wiki itself is a
104:
These are some Frequently Asked Questions about Knowledge's
422:
What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?
121:
whether material can be attributed, not whether it is true
307:
What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?
787:
667:
855:
for material originally published elsewhere, such as
351:, which is less reliable itself than professional or
1069:
John Smith argues throughout Chapter IV of his book
596:
Are web forums and blog talkbacks reliable sources?
577:, which is already cited in several articles, e.g.
515:
Questions about the reliability of specific sources
381:
Age of the source and rate of change of the subject
229:What are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?
847:if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a
865:. Be careful not to link to material that is a
823:Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?
101:
8:
194:; one of the most important of them is the
168:
1028:In many case it is appropriate to include
923:on the talk page, perhaps moving it there;
321:Books written by widely published authors;
474:, i.e. those sources that are considered
954:When should I tag unattributed material?
936:template to request a citation, add the
297:the self-publication provision of WP:ATT
1206:Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth.
1199:
1014:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
535:, the creator of the television series
909:What if a statement lacks attribution?
810:
800:
778:This example would render as follows:
1024:When should I use prose attributions?
520:Are Usenet postings reliable sources?
301:the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV
163:challenged or likely to be challenged
7:
670:points to revision 118386243 (dated
567:self-publication provision of WP:ATT
547:self-publication provision of WP:ATT
1238:Knowledge essays about verification
946:template to request attribution; or
247:Examples of primary sources include
169:Doesn't Knowledge care about truth?
862:The Late Show with David Letterman
149:All material in Knowledge must be
55:thoroughly vetted by the community
51:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
24:
619:and other wikis sponsored by the
1170:, or are in the public domain.)
68:
32:
633:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
127:, which is proposed as policy.
974:to the whole article, use the
494:the self-publication provision
1:
553:Are weblogs reliable sources?
130:This is a subsidiary page of
917:try to find a source for it;
1100:Knowledge:Convenience links
1094:What is a convenience link?
1012:It must not be tagged. See
608:Are wikis reliable sources?
1254:
1233:Knowledge failed proposals
1152:
1097:
877:
26:Essay on editing Knowledge
885:How do I write citations?
347:) and other sources with
880:Knowledge:Citing sources
684:
557:In most cases, no. Most
224:Types of source material
123:. For more details, see
91:or initiate a thread at
731:Knowledge contributors
658:—it is best to use the
1133:
1083:
1079:The Very Reliable Book
1077:. The 2007 edition of
1071:The Very Reliable Book
1046:
784:Knowledge contributors
533:J. Michael Straczynski
365:Declaration of sources
340:Self published sources
111:
1137:The Wealth of Nations
1128:The Wealth of Nations
1123:
1118:The Wealth of Nations
1067:
1051:neutral point of view
1038:
921:dispute the statement
629:Knowledge:Attribution
503:self-published source
196:Neutral Point of View
144:Knowledge:Attribution
132:Knowledge:Attribution
125:Knowledge:Attribution
53:, as it has not been
18:Knowledge:Attribution
1144:No original research
1075:Reliability Magazine
741:Knowledge community
621:Wikimedia Foundation
1042:Friedrich von Hayek
867:copyright violation
790:. Knowledge, The 💕
485:questionable source
472:confidential source
442:The Washington Post
349:editorial oversight
336:Editorial oversight
1088:Avoid weasel words
1030:prose attributions
813:has generic name (
761:Knowledge, The 💕
452:unpublished source
255:of laboratory and
1189:Secondary sources
899:featured articles
891:Harvard reference
859:'s appearance on
680:Cite Web template
674:) of the article
650:If circumstances
269:Secondary sources
155:original research
100:
99:
63:
62:
1245:
1228:Knowledge essays
1213:
1204:
1194:Tertiary sources
1135:In such a case,
993:
987:
983:
977:
945:
939:
935:
929:
853:convenience link
849:secondary source
818:
812:
808:
806:
798:
796:
795:
774:
770:
767:
764:
760:
757:
754:
750:
747:
744:
740:
737:
734:
730:
727:
724:
720:
717:
714:
710:
707:
704:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
432:anonymous source
417:
411:
283:Tertiary sources
93:the village pump
72:
71:
65:
36:
35:
29:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1205:
1201:
1184:Primary sources
1180:
1157:
1151:
1146:
1102:
1096:
1034:Milton Friedman
1026:
1018:Knowledge:Libel
991:
985:
981:
975:
956:
943:
937:
933:
927:
911:
887:
882:
876:
845:primary sources
825:
809:
799:
793:
791:
782:
776:
775:
772:
768:
765:
762:
758:
755:
752:
748:
745:
742:
738:
735:
732:
728:
725:
722:
718:
715:
712:
708:
705:
702:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
656:notable project
610:
598:
555:
522:
517:
462:obsolete source
424:
415:
409:
309:
292:
235:Primary sources
231:
226:
188:
171:
147:
142:The essence of
110:
96:
69:
59:
58:
33:
27:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1251:
1249:
1241:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1179:
1176:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1095:
1092:
1060:(V, 257–9) is
1025:
1022:
1007:
1006:
995:
955:
952:
951:
950:
947:
924:
918:
910:
907:
886:
883:
875:
874:Citing sources
872:
871:
870:
838:
832:
824:
821:
820:
819:
788:"Encyclopedia"
786:(2007-03-28).
685:
668:this hyperlink
649:
609:
606:
597:
594:
554:
551:
521:
518:
516:
513:
512:
511:
498:
497:
496:of the policy.
480:
479:
467:
466:
457:
456:
447:
446:
423:
420:
397:
396:
385:
384:
377:
376:
369:
368:
361:
360:
355:journal (e.g.
326:
325:
322:
319:
316:
308:
305:
291:
288:
287:
286:
279:
278:
274:New York Times
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
248:
240:
239:
230:
227:
225:
222:
192:other policies
187:
184:
170:
167:
146:
140:
102:
98:
97:
83:
82:
73:
61:
60:
48:
47:
39:
37:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1250:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1211:
1210:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1148:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1125:Smith, Adam.
1122:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1101:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1058:Paradise Lost
1054:
1052:
1045:
1043:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1023:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1004:
1000:
996:
990:
980:
973:
969:
965:
964:
963:
961:
953:
948:
942:
932:
925:
922:
919:
916:
915:
914:
908:
906:
902:
900:
896:
892:
884:
881:
873:
868:
864:
863:
858:
857:Wesley Autrey
854:
850:
846:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
826:
822:
816:
804:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
711:Encyclopedia
683:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
647:
645:
641:
636:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
607:
605:
602:
595:
593:
591:
586:
584:
583:Drudge Report
580:
576:
570:
568:
564:
560:
552:
550:
548:
544:
540:
539:
534:
529:
527:
519:
514:
509:
504:
500:
499:
495:
491:
486:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
463:
459:
458:
453:
449:
448:
444:
443:
438:
433:
429:
428:
427:
421:
419:
414:
406:
401:
394:
390:
387:
386:
382:
379:
378:
374:
373:Corroboration
371:
370:
366:
363:
362:
358:
354:
353:peer reviewed
350:
346:
345:The Economist
341:
337:
334:
333:
332:
329:
323:
320:
317:
314:
313:
312:
306:
304:
302:
298:
289:
284:
281:
280:
275:
270:
267:
266:
258:
254:
249:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
236:
233:
232:
228:
223:
221:
219:
215:
210:
206:
204:
199:
197:
193:
185:
183:
179:
175:
166:
164:
160:
156:
152:
145:
141:
139:
137:
136:the talk page
133:
128:
126:
122:
118:
117:
109:
107:
94:
90:
89:the talk page
86:
81:
79:
74:
67:
66:
56:
52:
46:
44:
38:
31:
30:
19:
1208:
1202:
1172:
1161:
1158:
1136:
1134:
1127:
1124:
1116:
1114:Adam Smith's
1108:to a formal
1105:
1103:
1084:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1068:
1061:
1055:
1047:
1039:
1029:
1027:
1009:
1008:
1002:
998:
971:
967:
957:
912:
903:
888:
860:
792:. Retrieved
777:
676:Encyclopedia
651:
648:
637:
615:, including
611:
599:
587:
575:Language Log
571:
556:
542:
536:
530:
523:
502:
484:
476:confidential
475:
471:
461:
451:
440:
431:
425:
405:Common sense
402:
398:
392:
388:
380:
372:
364:
352:
348:
339:
335:
330:
327:
310:
293:
282:
273:
268:
234:
211:
207:
203:undue weight
200:
189:
180:
176:
172:
162:
158:
151:attributable
150:
148:
129:
120:
116:attributable
114:
112:
103:
75:
40:
1153:Main page:
1106:in addition
1098:Main page:
972:not harmful
751:2007-03-28
736:authorlink
721:2007-03-30
716:accessdate
437:Deep Throat
389:Persistence
277:themselves.
106:attribution
41:This is an
1222:Categories
1209:Liberalism
949:remove it.
878:See also:
794:2007-03-30
756:publisher
672:2007-03-28
640:Wikisource
601:Web forums
545:under the
508:exceptions
455:Knowledge.
418:template.
413:unreliable
218:WP:SCIENCE
159:attributed
76:This is a
997:If it is
966:If it is
960:summarize
766:language
664:MediaWiki
660:permalink
617:Knowledge
579:Snowclone
543:Babylon 5
538:Babylon 5
524:Posts on
214:WP:FRINGE
85:Consensus
80:proposal.
1178:See also
1110:citation
999:doubtful
968:doubtful
926:add the
895:footnote
811:|author=
803:cite web
771:English
690:cite web
644:Wikinews
490:tabloids
465:sources.
1003:harmful
893:, or a
841:YouTube
835:MySpace
726:author
652:require
563:Blogger
559:weblogs
1155:WP:NOR
706:title
590:WP:BLP
526:Usenet
393:broken
357:Nature
299:, and
78:failed
746:date
613:Wikis
257:field
253:notes
43:essay
16:<
1168:GFDL
1164:GFDL
1062:more
1016:and
1001:and
979:fact
970:but
931:fact
815:help
696:url
642:and
631:and
625:GFDL
216:and
1090:).
1036:):
989:who
984:or
958:To
941:who
829:IRC
460:An
450:An
439:in
430:An
1224::
1020:.
992:}}
986:{{
982:}}
976:{{
944:}}
938:{{
934:}}
928:{{
901:.
807::
805:}}
801:{{
773:}}
687:{{
635:.
592:.
581:,
569:.
549:.
501:A
483:A
470:A
416:}}
410:{{
303:.
220:.
165:.
138:.
869:.
817:)
797:.
769:=
763:|
759:=
753:|
749:=
743:|
739:=
733:|
729:=
723:|
719:=
713:|
709:=
703:|
699:=
693:|
510:.
95:.
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.