Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source
 | This is an essay. 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. |
No matter how knowledgeable you may be, you are not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. The reverse is also true, you are not a reliable source for removal of content supported by a reliable source that you think is in error.
There are several reasons why this is so:
- Readers cannot independently verify your identity.
- Readers cannot independently verify your credentials. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
- Readers cannot independently verify your facts. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- Readers cannot independently verify your analysis. See Wikipedia:No original research.
What to do if you have a reliable source
[edit]If you have a reliable source but don't know how to add a reference, you can put it in your edit summary. Edit summaries have a limit of around 500 characters so you can give more than one source. Better yet, read Help:Referencing for beginners and learn how to add references on your own.
See also
[edit]- Does "cultural imperialism" prevent the incorporation of indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia?, a December 2013 entry on the Wikipedia Signpost that disagreed with the principles of this essay and was promptly rubbished