Help:Reliable sources
Reliable sourcing allows readers to verify an article. The suitability of a source depends on the specific claim it supports, its expertise, editorial controls, independence and publication context.
Sources commonly useful for this encyclopedia
| Source type | Appropriate uses | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Published technical standards (ISO, IEC, IEEE, RFCs) | Standard identifiers, normative scope, terminology, requirements and versions | A standard describes a specified technical scope; it does not prove every implementation conforms. |
| Peer-reviewed papers | Research methods, measured results, study limitations and prior work | One paper may report preliminary or non-generalizable results; assess the actual methodology. |
| Scholarly books and textbooks | Established concepts, historical context and technical explanations | Check editions; a textbook may not cover current developments. |
| Government and research institution publications (for example NIST) | Published guidance, test methods, documented assessments and technical definitions | Cite the precise document or program; do not extend its conclusions beyond the stated scope. |
| Official product documentation | Directly attributable specifications and stated design features | Primary source, not independent verification of quality, safety, impact or market leadership. |
| Independent professional reporting | Independently documented events and corroborated industry context | Verify author, editorial process and whether claims originate solely from a press release. |
Primary and secondary evidence
A manufacturer's datasheet is useful evidence of what the manufacturer specifies, but may not establish that the product has achieved independently verified performance. A standards publisher is the primary authority for the title, edition and requirements of its own standard. Scholarly reviews or books can provide context and comparison across work by multiple researchers.
Verify every reference
- Open the full source rather than relying only on search summaries.
- Check the publication's author or issuing body, date, document number and edition.
- Locate the exact passage or data supporting your claim.
- Consider limitations, test conditions and conflicts of interest.
- Record sufficient bibliographic details for another reader to find the source.
- Recheck links and claims when technical standards or data are updated.
Unsuitable or insufficient evidence
- Fabricated or untraceable publications, publishers, DOIs or ISBNs.
- Marketing slogans repeated as objective facts.
- Unsourced blogs, anonymous posts or social media used as the only evidence for a consequential claim.
- AI-generated text cited as though it were a primary research publication.
- A source whose scope does not actually support the sentence.
These are contextual cautions, not an automatic prohibition on every use. For example, an official project page may reliably document its own release announcement, but a third-party source is preferable for independent assessment of its significance.
Examples
- ISO 8373:2021 is suitable for identifying that edition of the robotics vocabulary standard.
- NIST SP 800-207 is suitable for describing the scope and concepts of NIST's zero trust architecture guidance.
- RFC 5280 is suitable for technical claims about its X.509 certificate-profile specification.
Related help
Help:Citing sources · Help:Neutral point of view · Help:Article Wizard