User talk:Srarakawa

Reliable sources

Thanks for dropping me a line on my Talk page! I urge you to review our policy regarding reliable sources. In general, a high quality encyclopedia must rely on sources that people can generally agree are reliable and relatively accessible so that readers and editors can verify information in articles. How is any reader or editor supposed to know that material added by someone whom we don't know is accurate if the only evidence provided is the editor's personal experience? It shouldn't be up to other editors to find corroborating evidence for statements made by other editors but the person who believes the information should be added or changed should provide that evidence (in the form of a citation that provides enough information for others to locate the original source and verify the information).

I know it's really weird to tell someone that their own experiences and knowledge can't be relied upon as evidence. But that's what we have to do when creating an encyclopedia that people can use and trust. We have to rely on sources that are available and widely seen as reliable so other people always have an opportunity to verify claims made in any article.

Does that make some sense? ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)