Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
"The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace" (PDF). Department of Homeland Security. February 2003. Archived from the original on 30 August 2017. Retrieved 19 January 2024.
This is a PDF that outlines cyberspace threats and vulnerabilities, national policies and guiding principles, as well as a list of national cyberspace security priorities. This covers the topic in some depth which establishes notability.
House, The White (2024-04-30). "National Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience". The White House. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
This article published by the official White House webpage discusses national security, operating models, and interdependent systems that can be attacked due to weak infrastructure. It goes into depth on various principles and objectives which can help establish notability.
Salem, Aya H.; Azzam, Safaa M.; Emam, O. E.; Abohany, Amr A. (2024-08-04). "Advancing cybersecurity: a comprehensive review of AI-driven detection techniques". Journal of Big Data. 11 (1): 105. doi:10.1186/s40537-024-00957-y. ISSN 2196-1115.
This journal discusses possible ways cybersecurity can be advanced by using artificial intelligence in the detection of cyber-attacks. It goes into depth on machine learning and deep learning, along with algorithms examined over sixty studies, which can help establish notability.
Examples:
Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980 Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.
The articles included in the bibliography would help contribute to more relevant information because it discusses how national security and cyber security work hand in hand.
The third article also highlights how newer developments in artificial intelligence can contribute to advancements in cybersecurity.
Other changes I would make to the article would be deleting references of old URLs and webpages that no longer exist.
Multiple links that I clicked on have 404 errors or the html is broken.
This will improve the page by only including sources that are up to date and that exist for current users to look at and read for better understanding.
Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article.
In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality.
Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further.
Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap.
