Source Evaluation on Wikipedia: How to Tell Reliable Info from Noise

When you edit Wikipedia, you’re not just writing facts—you’re deciding what counts as truth. That’s where source evaluation, the process of judging whether a piece of information comes from a trustworthy place. Also known as source verification, it’s the backbone of every reliable Wikipedia article. It doesn’t matter how well-written your sentence is—if the source behind it is shaky, your edit will get reverted. This isn’t about opinion. It’s about a system built to stop misinformation before it spreads.

Wikipedia doesn’t let you use just any source. primary sources, original materials like interviews, raw data, or personal blogs. Also known as firsthand accounts, they’re useful for context but rarely enough on their own. You need secondary sources, analysis or reporting by experts who’ve reviewed multiple primary sources. Also known as third-party reporting, they’re the gold standard for Wikipedia edits. A newspaper article summarizing a scientific study? That’s a secondary source. The original study itself? That’s primary—and usually not enough to support a claim on Wikipedia. The difference isn’t subtle. Using the wrong one is why so many edits get flagged.

Source evaluation isn’t just about picking good references. It’s about spotting bias, conflicts of interest, and hidden agendas. A corporate blog post might sound official, but if it’s written by a company defending its product, it’s not neutral. A local blog might have great details about a town event, but if no other outlet covered it, it likely doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability bar. Even academic papers can be problematic if they’re outdated, poorly peer-reviewed, or published by a predatory journal. That’s why experienced editors check the publisher, the author’s credentials, and whether other reliable sources agree.

And it’s not just about the source—it’s about how you use it. Wikipedia’s due weight policy means you can’t give equal space to fringe views just because they exist. If 95% of reliable sources say something is true, your article should reflect that. You also can’t just copy-paste a quote and call it done. You need to explain how the source supports your claim. That’s part of source evaluation too: understanding context, not just grabbing text.

What you’ll find below are real stories from Wikipedia’s front lines. You’ll see how volunteers fight to keep bad sources out, how journalists use Wikipedia to find better sources, and why AI-generated encyclopedias often look right but are dangerously wrong. You’ll learn how to spot misleading citations, handle copyright takedowns that erase good content, and why some of the most trusted articles on Wikipedia were almost deleted because someone used the wrong kind of source. This isn’t theory. It’s what happens every day when real people try to keep the world’s largest encyclopedia accurate—and why source evaluation isn’t optional. It’s the only thing standing between truth and chaos.