Wikipedia:Who to attribute in-text
 | This is an essay on the policies and guidelines for in-text attribution of sources (which are used for claims by dubiously-reliable sources and for statements of opinion), depending on the format of the source. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
If attributing a source in-text, what information about the source to mention depends on what the source is, due to how much responsibility different parties tend to have over the content:
This essay is only about the in-text attribution, e.g. "according to ..." Always include all known information in the full citation.
For all sources, do not attribute content providers (e.g. JSTOR, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, National Library of Medicine, etc.) for content they host; only attribute them for metadata and annotations they add.
Serials
[edit]"According to an article by <authors> of <org> published in <publication>" (omitting unknown components) is always okay, but the best way to attribute depends on the type of source:
News (online or print)
[edit]- If the source specifically states that it is written by or represents the viewpoint of the newspaper:
- If both an author and a news agency (e.g. AP, Reuters, etc.) are specified, say "according to <newspaper> based on reporting by <author> of <agency>".
- If only an author is specified, say "according to <author> of <newspaper>".
- If only a news agency is specified, say "according to <newspaper> based on reporting by <agency>".
- If neither are specified, say "according to <newspaper>".
- Otherwise, if the source being cited is a comment, an opinion, an obituary, or an advertisement:
- If both an author and a news agency or an organization are specified, say "according to <author> of <org>".
- If only an author is specified, say "according to <author>".
- If only a news agency or an organization is specified (this should be assumed for advertisements), say "according to <org>".
- If neither are specified, say "according to a(n) <type of source> in <newspaper>".
- Otherwise:
- If both an author and a news agency or organization are specified, say "according to <author> of <org>".
- If only an author is specified, say "according to <author> of <newspaper>".
- If only a news agency or an organization is specified, say "according to <org>".
- If neither are specified, say "according to <newspaper>".
Academic journals
[edit]- If authors are specified, say "according to <authors>".
- If it is an anonymous article, say 'according to "<title>" '.
- Only if it is an editorial note, say "according to <journal>".
Magazines
[edit]- If the source is written by magazine staff, treat it as news.
- If the source is written by an external contributor, treat it as an academic journal.
Books
[edit]- "According to the book <title> by <author>, published by <publisher>," is okay but not ideal.
- If an author is specified, "according to <author>", or perhaps "according to <title> by <author>", is best.
- If the work is pseudonymous but the real author is publicly known, "according to <real name> writing as <pseudonym>" or "according to <title> by <real name> writing as <pseudonym>" is best.
- If the work is anonymous, "according to <title>" is best.
- Unless the publisher specifically commissioned and is in full control of the book, do not say "according to <publisher>".