Wikipedia:The proximate source is what matters
Essay on editing Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sometimes, when discussing source reliability, people make arguments of this nature: "Sure, this article is reliable... but it's citing some random blog! That blog isn't an WP:RS, so we can't cite the article!"
 | This is an essay on WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Only the reputation and reliability of the sources we're citing directly matter. We do not generally care about the reliability of the sources cited by our sources. |
This is, generally speaking, not how it works. The purpose of a WP:SECONDARY reliable source is to analyze and evaluate primary sources, including ones we would consider unreliable ourselves; the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
of the proximate source is normally presumed to cover fact-checking that they apply to the sources they use. To some extent this process of taking information from unreliable sources, fact-checking it, staking their reputation on it, and turning it into coverage we can use is the entire purpose of a secondary source. Wikipedia itself is forbidden from engaging in original research; but we rely on secondary sources to perform that research for us.
Exceptions and limitations
While objecting to a source's own sources is not itself generally a policy-based argument, there are still some caveats worth considering, which create situations where it might come up.
- First, whether a source is WP:INDEPENDENT, in particular, can change based on what they're covering; an otherwise reliable source may not be independent when quoting their own CEO or someone else they have a direct professional relationship with. The degree to which this impacts their independence, and therefore their reliability as a source, depends on context, but generally speaking a source wouldn't be considered independent when covering a person or organization who has direct editorial control over their content.
- Second, likewise, some sources are only reliable in particular contexts. A source with a narrow, specific area of expertise might be less reliable when covering things outside of that area.
- Third, it's reasonable to show some caution when a source cites a WP:FRINGE figure, since fringe-ness is about the content itself being fringe and not just about the source; but note that when we do cover fringe topics, this is the way we would do it (ie. via a reliable secondary source covering it.)
- Fourth, while the proximate source may be usable, it is worth looking at how they cover the part being cited - if the proximate source quotes someone with obvious skepticism, we must reflect that skepticism; if they give it minimal weight, then we should also give it minimal weight, and avoid pulling minor aspects out and highlighting them in an undue fashion. Only the reliability of the proximate source matters; but only the content and context of the proximate source matters, too; pulling quotes out of context may be misusing it as a source.
- Fifth, if a supposedly reliable source that repeatedly relies on obviously bad sources itself, this may be an indicator that its own reputation isn't as strong as we thought... but note that this ought to be established by showing secondary coverage of the source itself, not just by going "but it's constantly wrong tho" ourselves.
- And finally, while "this source is citing bad sources" isn't itself a policy-based argument, and editors will reasonably object to this as WP:OR, we do have some leeway to exclude things that seem questionable; aside from generally just deciding it shouldn't be included, policies like WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and so on exist specifically to set a high bar in situations where an error in a single source could be unusually harmful. Therefore, if you're convinced that a source's own sourcing is flawed in a context where one of those policies applies, it might be worth pointing to them and asking for additional or higher-quality sourcing. You can also look for other sources of equal or higher quality that contradict the original source.