255:) closely related to the subject are a valuable source of community-reviewed information from the people and organizations with the in-depth knowledge of the subject. Though, reading the whole thread of a mailing list discussion (or the reviews of the conference) before actually citing the material may save a lot of editors' time and effort.
35:
182:) can only prove the availability and release dates of the software, though primary sources are still preferable in determining these facts. The publishers' descriptions on such sites should be considered yet less reliable than the primary sources. The editors' reviews in such sources should be used carefully. A
129:
The primary sources should be used with care. Though the authors of software possess the deepest possible knowledge of the software's features and implementations, their approach to sharing information can be heavily influenced with the goals of promoting the software. Avoid using the primary sources
201:
It is also important to make difference between the blog, hosted by reputable mass media source, and the mass media source itself: being a blog post, the cited source may or may not be subject to editorial overview and/or reputation of the source for fact checking, independence of the top and other
149:
The games' fan sites and user communities can be a valuable source of the in-depth information about the software. Still, such sources ordinarily lack any editorial control and may contain the false information, so generally they should not be cited until the statement they are supposed to prove is
133:
The primary sources should not be used if the issue is argued in the third-party sources. In cases when such arguments are encountered, the claims of primary sources can only be cited in combination with independent third-party sources explicitly supporting such claims.
194:
The decision to cite an online media should be based on its reputation for fact-accuracy and depth of coverage, which should match the claim's impact on the article. The important claims should be backed with solid, undisputable reputation.
331:
102:
The sources of unquestionable reliability simply do not exist; though generally the following criteria define the source that would likely be seen as reliable by the majority of editors:
106:
The books, scientific papers and mass-media articles by the authors who are both generally accepted as the experts in the field and are independent from the topic of the article.
198:
Nevertheless, if the source has a known, widely acknowledged bias, the same rules as for the primary sources should be applied to the material that is related to such bias.
243:. Thus the description of the features, algorithms or implementations of the software should be supported with the sources known for better understanding of such details.
341:
94:
to the articles about software. Software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console.
336:
235:
The sources specializing in the field of computing and software should be generally considered more reliable than the general public sources. The editor of
294:
150:
not cited elsewhere; even in that case such information should be removed from the article if anyone expresses doubts about its inaccuracy.
90:
The
Knowledge articles should rely on and reference reliable sources. Being an essay, this document provides a commentary on application of
109:
The books, mass-media articles and blogs, published by the people and organizations with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.
54:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
55:
280:
If You found a valuable quote on fan site, find its source. If no such source is found, don't trust this quote at all.
112:
The articles in the online media, which is generally accepted as a reliable source of software-related information.
47:
326:
271:
Eg., it's OK to cite a fan site in description of a games' storyline development or the similarities of software.
156:
cite forum posts and the writings by unknown authors. Avoid quoting such sites or reusing quotes from there.
160:
141:
use primary sources to support the claims about the software's reception (such as popularity or user base).
183:
59:
290:
225:
69:
186:
may describe the software's feature set, edited independently of the software's own publisher.
205:
The less important are the claims, the less strict rules should apply. E.g., the claims about
307:
43:
236:
121:
The choice of sources should heavily rely on the material they are supposed to support.
137:
If the style of the source appears to be promotional, this source should not be cited.
320:
62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
240:
91:
179:
218:
17:
239:
is likely to possess less knowledge of the software topic than the editor of
175:
213:
could be supported by virtually any source, including the uncontroversial
214:
252:
29:
77:
170:
The sites that are supposed to inform users about the
251:The mailing list and developer conferences (like
202:properties of publisher, which make it reliable.
130:for commercially available software description.
332:Knowledge essays about building the encyclopedia
50:policy application in articles about software.
8:
308:deliberate false or provocative statements
174:of software or provide downloads (such as
342:Knowledge essays about reliable sources
264:
7:
98:Sources normally considered reliable
337:Knowledge essays about verification
60:thoroughly vetted by the community
56:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
306:Unless such source is known for
33:
166:Directories and download sites
1:
247:Mailing lists and conferences
217:posts, reputable blogs (e.g.
293:' software repositories or
358:
223:
158:
67:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
221:) and local newspapers.
117:Adequateness of sources
190:Online media and blogs
209:being criticized for
58:, as it has not been
92:corresponding policy
291:Linux distributions
184:software repository
295:application stores
231:Depth of coverage
88:
87:
16:(Redirected from
349:
327:Knowledge essays
311:
304:
298:
287:
281:
278:
272:
269:
161:WP:USERGENERATED
145:User communities
80:
48:reliable sources
37:
36:
30:
21:
357:
356:
352:
351:
350:
348:
347:
346:
317:
316:
315:
314:
305:
301:
288:
284:
279:
275:
270:
266:
261:
249:
237:Washington Post
233:
228:
192:
168:
163:
147:
127:
125:Primary sources
119:
100:
84:
83:
76:
72:
64:
63:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
355:
353:
345:
344:
339:
334:
329:
319:
318:
313:
312:
299:
282:
273:
263:
262:
260:
257:
248:
245:
232:
229:
191:
188:
167:
164:
146:
143:
126:
123:
118:
115:
114:
113:
110:
107:
99:
96:
86:
85:
82:
81:
73:
68:
65:
53:
52:
40:
38:
26:
24:
18:Knowledge:RSFS
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
354:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
324:
322:
309:
303:
300:
296:
292:
286:
283:
277:
274:
268:
265:
258:
256:
254:
246:
244:
242:
238:
230:
227:
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
199:
196:
189:
187:
185:
181:
177:
173:
165:
162:
157:
155:
151:
144:
142:
140:
135:
131:
124:
122:
116:
111:
108:
105:
104:
103:
97:
95:
93:
79:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
57:
51:
49:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
302:
285:
276:
267:
250:
241:Ars Technica
234:
210:
206:
204:
200:
197:
193:
171:
169:
153:
152:
148:
138:
136:
132:
128:
120:
101:
89:
41:
226:WP:NEWSBLOG
180:SourceForge
42:This is an
321:Categories
224:See also:
219:Lifehacker
159:See also:
207:product X
176:Softpedia
172:existence
215:Slashdot
211:reason Y
70:Shortcut
78:WP:RSFS
46:on the
253:FOSDEM
289:Eg.,
259:Notes
154:Never
139:Never
44:essay
178:or
323::
310:.
297:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.