Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
Calvert, K. (2013). Starting from scratch on perpetual access. The Serials Librarian, 65(1), 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.800464
Goertzen, M. J., Wolven, R. A. & Carroll, J. D. (2015). Preservation Pending: The Future of E-book Access in the Digital Age. Library and Book Trade Almanac. 23-40.
Grissom, A. R., Knowlton, S. A., & Scott, R. E. (2017). Perpetual access information in serials holdings records. Library Resources & Technical Services, 61(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.61n1.57
Kumar, N. (2016). E-resources preservation: Challenge with libraries of twenty first century. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 6(2), 229-232.
Luther, J., DiFiore, K., Gibbs, N., Lamoureux, S. D., Reich, V., Staines, H. R., & Steinle, K. (2010). Ensuring perpetual access to online subscriptions. The Serials Librarian, 58(1-4), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615261003623047
Mering, M. (2015). Preserving electronic scholarship for the future: An Overview of LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, portico, CHORUS, and the keepers registry. Serials Review, 41(4), 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2015.1099397
Morris, S. (2001). Perpetual access to licensed content. Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, 5(1).
Shah, U. U., & Gul, S. (2019). LOCKSS, CLOCKSS & PORTICO: a look into digital preservation policies. Library Philosophy and Practice, 0_1,1-5.
Stemper, J., & Barribeau, S. (2006). Perpetual access to electronic journals: A survey of one academic research library's licenses. Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 91-109.
Waller, A., & Bird, G. (2006). "We own it": Dealing with "perpetual access" in big deals. The Serials Librarian, 50(1-2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v50n01_17
