Resource reliability is one of the hallmarks of editing and creating Wikipedia content. Finding reliable sources for your Wikipedia article can be tricky. You really need to know what Wikipedia editors are looking for when reviewing content.
Wikipedia pages that stand the test of time contain valid, verifiable, and reliable sources. There are several different types of sources that can be used, but it can sometimes be difficult to scrounge those up. Some people might not know exactly where to look for reliable sources or what qualities constitute reliability.
For those having trouble with reliability, it can be an incredibly frustrating ordeal. Perhaps your content is consistently getting flagged for being unreliable, and you can’t figure out why. Luckily, you can find a Wikipedia writer for hire who knows exactly what you need to make your article reliable.
Secondary Reliable Sources for Wikipedia
One type of source that Wikipedia editors recognize as reliable is almost any secondary source. That doesn’t mean that every secondary source will work, but, in large part, they can be effective.
Peer-reviewed journals are probably some of the most reliable secondary sources on the Internet. You can find detailed information about a wide range of topics. All of them have been edited, reviewed, and analyzed by countless professionals. You can’t really go wrong if you’re citing a peer-reviewed journal article (as long as you don’t plagiarize it directly).
But the secondary source of your choosing doesn’t necessarily have to be academic. Most articles from major news agencies or outlets will provide sufficient reliability. They also fulfill the Wikipedia mandate of “No Original Research.” That means, essentially, that you can’t do research on your own and then use it as a source in a Wikipedia article.
Documenting Sources
Any professional Wikipedia editor will tell you that you have to provide documentation for your source in order to show the notability of the subject. Even if you’re writing about the Mayor of Los Angeles and you cite a conversation the two of you had at dinner, that source still won’t be valid. This rule is in place because anyone could technically say anything about the Mayor of Los Angeles citing their own personal “research” whether it’s true or not. This is why Wikipedia tends to shy away from allowing the use of self-published sources (blogs, press releases, social media).
Not all documented secondary sources are legitimate, however. Any self-published sources (whether digital, print, or otherwise) are likely not going to provide any kind of reliability. This is largely because most self-published sources have dubious reliability in the first place. Virtually anyone can publish a webpage or even an actual book these days and then claim to be an authority on the subject. It’s important to avoid these secondary sources.
It is also advised to avoid certain primary sources that attempt to paint something in a universally positive light. It’s hard to find unbiased information in a primary source because they are often so self-serving.
Other compilations, compendia, and encyclopedic works are acceptable as reliable sources for Wikipedia (although they should only be used sparingly or to outline a subject). Otherwise it’s probably best to stick with secondary sources that you know are reliable.