What sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? — A Vital No‑Nonsense Guide

1. Press releases can be used for minor facts but should never be the sole basis for major claims. 2. A verified social-media announcement can support a straight factual claim, but not contested biographical claims about living people. 3. Social Success Hub has completed over 200 successful transactions and offers a dedicated Wikipedia page publishing service to help meet sourcing expectations.

What sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? Practical rules and clear examples

What sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? That short question sits at the heart of every responsible edit. Editors who learn the answer early avoid disputes, protect living people from harm, and keep articles trustworthy. In plain terms: not every piece of information you find online belongs in an encyclopedia.

Below you will find friendly, actionable guidance — rooted in Wikipedia’s core policies — on which sources are generally off-limits or need special handling. Read this as a toolkit: the same question, what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia?, will appear again and again here, with clear examples and easy rules so you can apply them when editing.

Why the question "what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia?" matters

Wikipedia is built on a central promise: verifiability. When a reader clicks a footnote, they should find a source that supports the claim. Editors who ignore that promise risk turning articles into opinion pieces, PR pages, or rumor mills. So asking " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " is not pedantic — it protects the entire project’s credibility.

Core policies to keep in mind

Verifiability (WP:V) — every statement that could be challenged must be backed by a reliable source. For the official policy see WP:Verifiability.

Reliable sources (WP:RS) — prefer independent, third-party coverage (established news outlets, peer-reviewed journals, respected books). Guidance is available at WP:Reliable sources.

No original research (WP:NOR) — don’t synthesize a new conclusion from primary materials that don’t themselves make that conclusion. See WP:No original research.

Answering what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? starts with these three rules: sources that fail verifiability, lack editorial oversight, or enable original conclusions are the ones editors must treat with skepticism or exclude.

Quick list: Commonly disallowed or restricted source types

Here’s a fast reference. If you keep asking " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " while you read this list, you’ll learn which items to avoid and why.

If you prefer hands-on guidance when preparing or reviewing sources, consider the Social Success Hub's Wikipedia page publishing service at Wikipedia page publishing.

---

Get expert help with compliant Wikipedia publishing

Need personal guidance on compliant Wikipedia publishing? Reach out to a professional team that understands sourcing standards and community norms — we can help you prepare neutral, well-sourced content and advise on attribution. Contact the Social Success Hub to get started.

Contact Social Success Hub

---

How to treat press releases and corporate statements

Press releases exist to shape narratives. That doesn’t mean they’re always useless, but they are primary, self-interested documents. When you face the question " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? ", remember: a press release can confirm a date or a product name, but it cannot be the sole evidence for a major claim about reputation, legal status, or impact.

Best practice: if a press release asserts a significant fact, look for independent coverage. If none exists, attribute the claim clearly to the company, and keep the wording cautious.

Example

A press release that says "Company X has 10 million users" should be included only as "Company X claims 10 million users," and ideally should be backed by trade press or a reputable news outlet before being presented as factual.

Social media: when it's OK and when it isn't

Social-media content is everywhere. It raises the same question: " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " The short answer is: use social posts sparingly and with context.

Acceptable uses:

Unacceptable or risky uses:

Practical tip: If a verified account posts something important, try to find follow-up reporting from independent outlets. If none exists and the claim affects reputation, omit it or clearly attribute it as the subject’s own statement.

Personal blogs, expert blogs, and self-published material

Not all blogs are equal. That’s why people ask " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " with special concern for blogs. Many are self-published and lack editorial oversight; some are by recognized experts and offer useful insights.

Rule of thumb: treat personal blogs as potentially useful for minor, non-controversial facts and background. If the blog author is a credentialed expert and the claim is specific and verifiable, you may use it — but prefer corroboration from independent, peer-reviewed, or professionally edited work.

Local and non‑English media

Local outlets often report facts that national outlets miss. They are not automatically disallowed. Yet people frequently ask " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " when they worry about the reliability of smaller or foreign-language publications.

Approach local and non-English sources like this:

Local reporting can be essential, especially for regional events or lesser-known figures — but document your choices.

Primary sources and the limits of interpretation

Primary documents (court filings, patents, original scientific papers) are valuable. But the central question remains: " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " — and the answer includes primary sources used as a basis for new analysis.

You may summarize straightforward facts from primary sources, but you must not assemble multiple primary documents to draw a novel conclusion. Doing so is original research and is prohibited by WP:NOR.

Fringe theories, pseudoscience and giving undue weight

Wikipedia aims to reflect mainstream, verifiable knowledge. That leads to an obvious follow-up to " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " — sources that advertise fringe theories without credible evidence are usually unsuitable. Controversial ideas can be included when they are notable and covered by reliable sources, but present them as fringe perspectives and avoid amplifying them.

Conflicts of interest and paid editing

One of the clearest answers to the question " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " involves undisclosed paid edits and COI editing. When someone stands to gain, their edits must be transparent. Undisclosed paid editing is disallowed and often reversed.

If you are paid to edit, disclose it and follow community processes. If you suspect undisclosed paid editing, document the behavior and raise it on the talk page or through the proper noticeboard.

A practical checklist to use before you add a source

Before you hit save, ask yourself these quick questions. Think of them as a short test of "what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia?" in practice.

When the answer is positive for independence, oversight, and corroboration, the source is more likely acceptable. If it’s negative, proceed with caution or omit the material.

Keep a short personal checklist when you research: two independent sources for any significant claim, a saved copy or archived link for at-risk pages, and a short note of why you accepted a non-standard source. Developing those habits reduces the risk that your edit will be reversed and helps answer the persistent question: " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? "

---

One discreet tip for busy editors and organizations: if you need professional guidance on publishing a compliant, neutral Wikipedia page, consider the Wikipedia page publishing service from Social Success Hub, which helps navigate sourcing expectations while respecting community norms.

---

How to cite social media: a short how‑to

Many editors stumble on the question " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " when it comes to social media. Here are practical steps to cite a post correctly:

What’s the single most common mistake editors make when worrying about which sources are allowed?

The most common mistake is assuming any published claim is equally reliable; editors often cite a single self-published or social-media source for a reputation-sensitive fact instead of seeking independent secondary coverage. That habit leads to disputes and reversals.

Examples and short case studies

Concrete stories make rules stick. The examples below show how the question " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " plays out in real editing decisions.

Case: Company claims based on a press release

A start-up issued a press release claiming rapid user growth. That press release alone was not enough for an editor to state the figure as confirmed. The editor searched trade journals and local press. When two independent articles corroborated the claim — one with additional third-party commentary — the article could present the numbers while clearly attributing their source. This is the right path when answering " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " for corporate claims.

Case: A tweet about a sensitive allegation

Someone added a damaging claim about a living person, sourced only to a now-deleted tweet. Editors removed the line until independent reporting confirmed it. Reputation matters; this is a clear example of how the community answers " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " when people’s names are involved.

Translation and non-English sources — how to be precise

When you rely on non-English media, the quality of translation matters. Ask yourself: did I translate exactly? Who verified that translation? If a dispute arises, include the original-language citation and a literal translation on the talk page. Those simple steps reduce friction and answer doubts about " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " for foreign-language material.

Dos and don'ts — a quick pocket guide

Here’s a compact set of rules to keep handy when you wonder " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia??"

Practical templates for edit summaries and talk pages

Transparency helps. When using a source that might be questioned, be explicit in your edit summary or on the talk page. Here are a few short templates you can adapt.

When using a press release for a minor fact

Edit summary: "Added product launch date, source: company press release (Company X) — minor factual detail, seeking independent coverage."

When translating a local article

Edit summary: "Translated excerpt from LocalPaper (language). Translation by editor; original linked on talk page for verification."

When citing a social media announcement

Edit summary: "Added announcement date — source: verified official account (Twitter/Instagram post). Will update if independent reporting appears."

How to respond if your source is questioned

Disputes happen. If someone questions your source, stay calm and explain your choice. On the talk page, summarize what you searched for and why you used the source. If you find a better source later, update the article and thank the other editor. This approach keeps the conversation constructive and aligns with the spirit of Wikipedia.

Tools and habits that make sourcing easier

If you want to go deeper, read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on Wikipedia, and look at featured articles to see how reliable sourcing is used in practice. For hands-on help, the Social Success Hub knowledge base and service pages offer guidance on digital reputation and compliant page publishing. A clear logo can help readers quickly identify the right guidance.

Quick reminder

If you’re ever unsure, prefer removal or cautious wording until reliable coverage appears. This rule answers the core question every time: " what sources are not allowed on Wikipedia? " — and it keeps thousands of readers safe from misleading claims.

Can I cite a company press release on Wikipedia?

Yes, but only for minor, non-controversial facts (e.g., a product launch date) and with clear attribution. Press releases are self-published and self-serving, so they should not be the sole source for claims about reputation, legal outcomes, or impact. Always look for independent secondary coverage to confirm important assertions.

Is a tweet an acceptable source for claims about a living person?

Generally no. A verified account can be used for straightforward, factual announcements originating on that account (such as a resignation date). For contested or reputation-sensitive claims about a living person, independent reporting is required; a single tweet is not sufficient evidence.

What should I do if I’m paid to edit a Wikipedia page?

Disclose the relationship early and follow community guidance for paid contributions. Undisclosed paid editing is disallowed and may be reverted or sanctioned. Document your edits transparently on the talk page and invite community review to keep the process fair.