Knowledge

:Common knowledge - Knowledge

Source 📝

49: 320:. "That sounds odd to me. Can anyone else verify that?" or "If we took a poll of experts in the field, would they all agree with this?" or "Is there a published source we can cite for this?" or "Is there anyone who is not {a supporter of the cause, a member of the cult, etc.} who could confirm this or offer another perspective?" 245:
are all published. Also, just citing a law that seems to make a specific instance of something illegal is not always enough. There may be other laws which override the cited law in the situation under consideration, and there are many details of the application of the law which complicate matters.
233:
Medical claims. There are many pitfalls, false leads, and confusing details and countervailing factors in medicine. It's also very important to report only accurate information. Even though Knowledge readers are cautioned not to use the encyclopedia instead of visiting a physician, we wouldn't want
347:
It can be a good idea to explain how things came to be the way they are. The fact that the letter is the first letter of the alphabet is an easily verified fact, which can be looked up in a dictionary. A link to a linguistic reference that explains the origins of the alphabet would be excellent
304:
You should evaluate the testimony of Wikipedians as you would any other primary source. Keep in mind that it can be rude to simply tell someone "I don't believe you" or "I think you are lying" or "You are so biased; no one should believe anything you say." Many people honestly hold mistaken
335:
Some facts may be so-called "common knowledge" today, but weren't known in the past or weren't obvious. It's a good idea for there to be some explanation of how these facts were discovered, how they have since been confirmed. For example, that the giant ball of fire in the sky is called the
282:. But many of us have experienced popular music, know our local geography, and are familiar with the meanings of words within our local communities, although, as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source. 259:
Linguistics: Language data beyond the smallest local communities, for example regional or national data on word use. Language variation is rich within a language. The data compiled by lexicographers and linguists quite often shows usage different from any one individual's everyday
356:
When reporting claims and opinions, so-called "weasel words" tend to crop up, like "some believe", and "others claim", which should always be avoided. Replace the weasel words with names of people, institutions, or publications, and cite the source of your claim. See
305:
opinions, and no one likes having their beliefs rejected. Many people also don't realize that the experiences of others are different from their own until other people share them, but are perfectly willing to be enlightened if it's done in a civil fashion.
112:. It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge. Even claims that are widely believed often turn out to be anywhere from only mostly true to the complete opposite of what is actually the case. 308:
The most diplomatic thing might be for someone to affirmatively say "I don't think that's correct, and here's some evidence from outside sources or my own experience which don't seem to match up with what you wrote".
344:. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is also a fact, but it's far from obvious from simple observation. A link to the history of this scientific discovery would be excellent documentation. 256:
Historical facts. An account by a professional historian, or if none is available, a contemporary written account. In the latter case, such a primary source should be interpreted with caution.
219:
that presents reports based on your own experience, or your own ideas, theories, or arguments, even when these are based on established facts, are not allowed, according to Knowledge policy.
174:
Universally-accepted everyday orders that are taught in early elementary school ("A comes before B in the English alphabet." or "January comes before February in the Gregorian calendar.")
134:
There are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources. This guideline seeks to define when it's a bad idea to do that.
380: 278:
Anything the reporting Wikipedians don't have direct personal experience with. Most of us don't have personal experience with space travel, or the atomic bombing of
234:
anything bad to happen to someone because of an inaccuracy here. There are plenty of written sources that are more authoritative than the average Wikipedian; see
316:. Many readers will have the same doubts. If you have a specific reason for doubt, definitely mention it. If not, you can simply ask some questions derived from 249:
Anything where a PhD (or other advanced training) is required in the field to be able to evaluate truth and consistency with the consensus view; for example,
123:. Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Knowledge policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed. For more information, see 146:
What appears to be common knowledge for some Wikipedians may be unknown to many from other cultures and backgrounds. For a different viewpoint, see
72:; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Knowledge's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of 205: 419: 375: 69: 271:: If you heard or read something somewhere, you must be able to cite a reliable published or broadcast source. Don't play the 290: 216: 201:
Claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This includes political and religious ideas.
124: 65: 28: 358: 57: 317: 286: 116: 399: 250: 36: 246:
Also, what is illegal varies by jurisdiction (for example, there are few drugs that are illegal everywhere).
128: 32: 230:
Claims that something is a scientific fact. Acceptable scientific theories are published and peer reviewed.
370: 120: 404: 324: 195: 77: 73: 312:
If you are thinking "that sounds fishy", but don't have any evidence to support your skepticism,
161:
Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a non-specialized map ("Dallas is in Texas.")
87: 389: 147: 272: 394: 235: 165: 385: 413: 17: 348:
documentation, although a link to confirmation from a dictionary would suffice.
222:
Facts that cannot be confirmed by Wikipedians other than the original claimant.
341: 27:
Note: The policy pages giving information about the need to cite sources are
279: 155:
Known time and date relating information ("There are seven days in a week.")
108:
A frequent justification in casual conversation is that a certain fact is
242: 241:
Claims that something is legal or illegal. Legislation, regulations, and
268: 194:
Facts about which Wikipedians themselves disagree cannot form a
337: 43: 340:
is an easily verified fact: all you have to do is check a
158:
Well-known historical facts ("Julius Caesar was a Roman.")
95: 381:
Knowledge:Content that could reasonably be challenged
168:("A tall spire sits atop the Empire State Building.") 115:Knowledge editors are strongly encouraged to find 289:for more information on these topics. Also see 187:be left to common knowledge without citations: 183:Certain kinds of claims should most definitely 164:Plain sight observations that can be made from 171:Mathematical or logical truisms ("1 + 1 = 2") 8: 204:For a sampling of controversial topics, see 300:Should I believe what other editors say? 138:Acceptable examples of common knowledge 206:Knowledge:List of controversial issues 7: 70:Knowledge's policies or guidelines 25: 376:Knowledge:Likely to be challenged 179:When to add citations for claims 47: 119:to support their edits, and to 291:Knowledge:No original research 125:Knowledge:No original research 29:Knowledge:No original research 1: 359:Knowledge:Avoid weasel words 331:Has it always been that way? 213:Untested facts or arguments 420:Knowledge information pages 238:for advice on finding them. 436: 318:Knowledge:Reliable sources 287:Knowledge:Reliable sources 85: 41:Knowledge information page 26: 400:Argument from incredulity 251:black hole thermodynamics 37:Knowledge:Citing sources 129:Knowledge:Verifiability 33:Knowledge:Verifiability 371:Knowledge:When to cite 405:Argumentum ad populum 191:Controversial claims 325:Knowledge:Wikiquette 227:Technical knowledge 66:encyclopedic article 18:Knowledge:IHEARDOFIT 265:Indirect knowledge 293:, which is policy. 110:"common knowledge" 217:Original research 106: 105: 16:(Redirected from 427: 117:reliable sources 98: 58:information page 51: 50: 44: 21: 435: 434: 430: 429: 428: 426: 425: 424: 410: 409: 395:Judicial notice 367: 354: 333: 302: 196:rough consensus 181: 166:public property 140: 102: 101: 94: 90: 82: 81: 48: 42: 39: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 433: 431: 423: 422: 412: 411: 408: 407: 402: 397: 392: 383: 378: 373: 366: 363: 353: 350: 332: 329: 301: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 283: 276: 273:telephone game 263: 262: 261: 257: 254: 247: 239: 231: 225: 224: 223: 220: 211: 210: 209: 202: 199: 180: 177: 176: 175: 172: 169: 162: 159: 156: 139: 136: 104: 103: 100: 99: 91: 86: 83: 63: 62: 54: 52: 40: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 432: 421: 418: 417: 415: 406: 403: 401: 398: 396: 393: 391: 387: 384: 382: 379: 377: 374: 372: 369: 368: 364: 362: 360: 351: 349: 345: 343: 339: 330: 328: 326: 321: 319: 315: 310: 306: 299: 292: 288: 284: 281: 277: 274: 270: 267: 266: 264: 258: 255: 252: 248: 244: 240: 237: 232: 229: 228: 226: 221: 218: 215: 214: 212: 207: 203: 200: 197: 193: 192: 190: 189: 188: 186: 178: 173: 170: 167: 163: 160: 157: 154: 153: 152: 151: 149: 145: 137: 135: 132: 130: 126: 122: 118: 113: 111: 97: 93: 92: 89: 84: 79: 75: 71: 68:, nor one of 67: 64:It is not an 61: 59: 53: 46: 45: 38: 34: 30: 19: 355: 352:Weasel words 346: 334: 322: 313: 311: 307: 303: 184: 182: 143: 142: 141: 133: 114: 109: 107: 55: 260:experience. 56:This is an 35:. Also see 390:WP:NOTBLUE 342:dictionary 148:WP:NOTBLUE 280:Hiroshima 144:Remember: 121:cite them 74:consensus 414:Category 365:See also 243:case law 88:Shortcut 386:WP:BLUE 269:Hearsay 78:vetting 388:& 314:say so 96:WP:CK 323:See 285:See 236:here 127:and 76:and 31:and 338:sun 185:not 416:: 361:. 327:. 131:. 275:. 253:. 208:. 198:. 150:. 80:. 60:. 20:)

Index

Knowledge:IHEARDOFIT
Knowledge:No original research
Knowledge:Verifiability
Knowledge:Citing sources
information page
encyclopedic article
Knowledge's policies or guidelines
consensus
vetting
Shortcut
WP:CK
reliable sources
cite them
Knowledge:No original research
Knowledge:Verifiability
WP:NOTBLUE
public property
rough consensus
Knowledge:List of controversial issues
Original research
here
case law
black hole thermodynamics
Hearsay
telephone game
Hiroshima
Knowledge:Reliable sources
Knowledge:No original research
Knowledge:Reliable sources
Knowledge:Wikiquette

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.