More information Wikipedia:Babel ...
Close
It seems that many new contributors are confused about this, so it bears repeating here. Our standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not Truth". Facts and citations can be verified; 'truths' are often open to endless dispute. This principle has allowed a diverse community of editors to work together on Wikipedia to cover a wide spectrum of subjects including Global warming and Jesus of Nazareth, for which there is hardly a lack of dispute over 'truth'.
Wikipedia is not a forum to promote or educate people about neglected fields. Ideas and theories should not appear on Wikipedia until and unless citations can be provided that show that they have been published in reliable sources that are not self-published.
The following are accepted reliable sources (in order of reliability).
- Peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses
- University-level textbooks
- Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
- Mainstream newspapers
Another way to view the principle "verifiability, not truth", is to understand that we as editors, cannot judge what should or shouldn't be in this encyclopedia, and so we look to external authorities (academic journals, textbooks, major newspapers) to guide us. It's no use convincing me, or any of the other editors here on Wikipedia, of the truth of your position. Judgment of what should be in Wikipedia is deferred to external mainstream sources of information. This is one of the bedrock principles upon which Wikipedia is built.
As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales puts it:
| “ |
The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my business. My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed and respected. Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it misses the point. ... [Instead] What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?
- If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
- If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
- If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? And this question can be answered in the fashion I outlined above. |
” |
| — Jimmy Wales, September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list. |
Committed identity: 599515385e0535ba9a3b29556ab5343abddc5d7327ade1607e44242cdff7060d7a0b4f2e6f137674007e5455584d41082a6f30d200898a383773542b8302b7f8 is an SHA512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
