Whose Source Is It Anyway?
Wikipedia articles are built on the news reports, studies, and books that others have produced, all distilled into a freely accessible encyclopedia visited by millions of people every day. But how do editors decide which sources to include and which to leave on the cutting room floor?
Picture, for a moment, that you are famous enough to have a Wikipedia article. It contains your many accomplishments, details your career, and even mentions your partner.
Except there's just one problem: you don't have a partner, and you haven't for years. You want to get your Wikipedia article changed, but you need a source to make that happen, and your word on the Talk page isn't good enough.
If that sounds far-fetched, just ask Severance star Patricia Arquette how all-too-real the situation was for her. In January 2025, she relayed her plight to Kelly Clarkson on the latter's daytime talk show. Wikipedia editors, fortunately, took pity on Arquette and updated her article a few days after the Clarkson clip hit the airwaves, but it's not uncommon for us to see editors demand stronger proof for seemingly innocuous details in an article.
When it comes to people, that's at least in part due to the site's biographies of living persons policy (BLP). BLP might be Wikipedia's strictest rule, and with good reason. An article filled with lies about a living person could cause harm far beyond scaring off a potential romantic partner, so they need to use the best possible sourcing. For other topics, the water is a little muddier, but the core of Wikipedia's rules demand that articles use "reliable sources" for their information. But what exactly does it mean to be "reliable"?
What the rules say
Much of what makes a source reliable or not is context dependent. According to Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, for a source to be considered reliable, it must be "independent, published, [and have] a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". That sounds like more words that need definitions.
Let's start with "published". For a source to be considered "published" by Wikipedia editors, it needs to a) have been made publicly available and b) have an archived copy somewhere, be it online or the real world. That means that private letters, diaries, and vague memories of past conversations that were never recorded don't count – at least, until they are made available publicly in some form.
"Independent", in this context, can mean a few different things. The easiest to determine is independence from the article topic. If a company writes a press release, then wants to use that press release to support content in their Wikipedia article, that press release is not considered independent by Wikipedia editors, and therefore isn't reliable.
Independence can extend to individual authors, who might be writing about a product they invested in, or to a publishing company publishing sources about themselves. If The Guardian — widely considered to be an excellent source on Wikipedia — publishes a story about itself, that story wouldn't be considered reliable by volunteer editors.
Independence can also extend to ownership. State-owned media or media outlets owned by a larger corporation with a poor reputation are also typically not seen as reliable on some or all topics by Wikipedia editors, and they will check ownership if the source is used in conjunction with an edit request by someone with a conflict of interest.
A "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is something an outlet earns by publishing corrections and being widely cited by other reliable sources (we know, that's a bit of an ouroboros). Elements that can help an outlet's claim to this reputation are publicly available editorial and corrections policies, clearly identifying authors, and having an "About" page listing names and contact information for the editorial team.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Generally, reliable sources on Wikipedia are going to be secondary sources. Wikipedia's rules require that the bulk of article content be based on secondary sources, which are at least one step removed from the article's subject.
To give examples of this: a company's history, published on that company's website, would be considered a primary source. Primary sources are documents or other media created contemporaneously with events by the people directly involved with that event. They are, by definition, not independent of their subjects. A newspaper article profiling a company and delving into its history, on the other hand, would be a secondary source. Secondary sources examine primary source documents and distill them into a new form.
Tertiary sources, the third major source type we run across, are collections of primary and secondary sources on a specific topic. Think dictionaries, almanacs, and yes, Wikipedia. Tertiary sources can be used to support facts on Wikipedia, though notably, Wikipedia itself cannot. Volunteer editors long ago recognized that user-generated content like Wikipedia, despite everyone's best efforts to make it perfectly accurate, doesn't have the level of editorial control required to be considered reliable.
One of the most common questions we receive is about the distinction between primary and secondary sources when it comes to interviews. An interview with a subject by a television station or newspaper that is published verbatim, in a question-and-answer format, is considered to be a primary source that hasn't been fact-checked. It's been our experience that volunteer editors rarely accept conflict of interest edit requests for updates that use an interview as a source, because a primary source isn't considered reliable in most cases.
What else is unreliable?
Wikipedia's reliability guidelines can be confusing, and it's far easier to say what isn't allowed than what is. Here are a few types of sources that generally aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia:
Social media posts
Blogs (like this one!)
Self-published books
ChatGPT/other large language model content
Forum discussions
Headlines
Company websites
Press releases
So what can I use?
If you have a question about a specific outlet or a specific source, one of the easiest ways to check if it's acceptable to use on Wikipedia is to head to the Perennial Sources list. Wikipedians keep a record of the discussions they've had on outlets, and when the consensus is strong enough, the outlet is added to the Perennial Sources list and color coded for clarity of acceptability. If the outlet isn't on the list, searching the archives of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might also yield an answer.
Beyond that, editors are expected to use their best judgment. The Perennial Sources list is incomplete, and there are simply too many possible outlets to list them all. When it comes to sources, there is a hierarchy of quality. The more people reviewing and critiquing a source before it is published, the stronger it is considered to be on Wikipedia. In broad terms, that sourcing hierarchy looks something like this:
If you're still not sure if a source is usable on Wikipedia or you aren't sure how to go about asking on the Talk page, reach out to us! Our team of professionals can steer you in the right direction and help you meet your Wikipedia goals.
Want a little more info on reliable sources? Check out our Wikipedia Resources Library for more information.