Citation Accuracy: Why Reliable Sources Matter on Wikipedia
When you see a fact on Wikipedia, it’s not there by guesswork—it’s there because someone found it in a citation accuracy, the practice of verifying claims with trustworthy, published sources. Also known as source verification, it’s the quiet backbone of everything Wikipedia stands for. Without it, the encyclopedia becomes just another collection of opinions. And that’s why editors fight over every footnote—because one bad citation can mislead millions.
Good citation accuracy doesn’t mean just linking to any website. It means using reliable sources, published materials like academic journals, books from respected publishers, and mainstream news outlets with editorial oversight. Also known as credible sources, these are the gold standard because they’ve been checked by others before being printed or posted. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, materials that analyze, interpret, or summarize primary data, like textbooks or peer-reviewed reviews. Also known as interpreted sources, they help avoid bias and give context that raw data alone can’t. A press release from a company? Not good enough. A newspaper article summarizing that press release with expert quotes? Now you’re talking. That’s the difference between a rumor and a reference.
Citation accuracy isn’t just about avoiding errors—it’s about fairness. If you’re writing about climate change, Indigenous history, or medical treatments, your citations need to reflect what experts actually say, not what’s trending online. That’s why Wikipedia has rules against using blogs, self-published content, or social media as sources. It’s not about controlling information—it’s about protecting readers from misinformation that spreads faster than truth.
You’ll find this principle running through every article in this collection. From how journalists use Wikipedia to find real sources, to how volunteers fight copyright takedowns that erase verified facts, to how AI tools struggle to understand why a 20-year-old peer-reviewed paper still beats a viral tweet—every story here ties back to one simple idea: accuracy isn’t optional. It’s the reason people still trust Wikipedia over AI-generated summaries that can’t cite their sources.
What follows are real stories from the front lines of Wikipedia’s source-checking wars. You’ll see how volunteers build annotated bibliographies to defend edits, how copy editors clear thousands of articles stuck in backlog, and how task forces fix systemic gaps in coverage by hunting down missing citations. This isn’t theory. It’s practice. And it’s happening right now—in quiet, persistent, citation-by-citation work that keeps the world’s largest encyclopedia honest.
Source Lists in AI Encyclopedias: How Citations Appear vs What’s Actually Verified
AI encyclopedias show citations that look credible, but many don't actually support the claims. Learn how source lists are generated, why they're often misleading, and how to verify what's real.
