See also: FW:CITE and FW:REF

Fossil Wiki is an online encyclopedia—a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of paleontology. The threshold for inclusion in Fossil Wiki is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to the Fossil Wiki has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. The Fossil Wiki is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

All material in the Fossil Wiki must be attributable to a reliable, published source; in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then it should not be in a Fossil Wiki article.

The Fossil Wiki's content presentation is governed by three principal core policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, jointly interpreted. These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Fossil Wiki articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.

Contents 1 Key principles 1.1 Fossil Wiki articles must be based on reliable sources 1.2 Fossil Wiki does not publish original research or original thought 2 Reliable sources 2.1 Primary and secondary sources 2.2 Using questionable or self-published sources 2.3 Exceptional claims require exceptional sources 2.4 Language 3 No original research 3.1 What is original research? 4 Living persons 5 How to cite sources

Key principlesEdit

Fossil Wiki articles must be based on reliable sourcesEdit

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Fossil Wiki does not publish original research or original thoughtEdit

Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

• Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed but may be attributable.
• Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable.

The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Reliable sourcesEdit

Primary and secondary sourcesEdit

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident and the White House's official text of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in the Fossil Wiki, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources.

Fossil Wiki articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Fossil Wiki articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of users who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Using questionable or self-published sourcesEdit

Some sources pose special difficulties:

• A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

• A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely unacceptable.

Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are three exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

2. Professional self-published sources

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see FW:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcesEdit

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
• surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

LanguageEdit

Because this is the Fossil Wiki, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.

No original researchEdit

Main article: Fossil Wiki:No original research

What is original research?Edit

Material counts as original research if it:

• introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

Living personsEdit

Main article: Fossil Wiki:Biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be neutral. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space.

How to cite sourcesEdit

Main article: Fossil Wiki:Citing sources

Further information and examples: Fossil Wiki:Citing sources

Any reader should be able to verify that material added to the Fossil Wiki has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.

Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article or an entire section is unsourced, you can contact an administrator to deal with it.

Fossil Wiki policies and guidelines
Assume good faith  • Attribution  • Be Bold  • Creationism  • Naming conventions  • No angry mastodons  • Neutral point of view  • Notability  • References  • Sourcing  • Verifiability