Myths and Folklore Wiki
Myths and Folklore Wiki

According to Myths and Folklore Wiki's mission, it is our goal to present verifiable information on mythology.

The Policy

  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  • Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Removing Un-sourced Information

In general, it is a mistake to delete content. Therefore, it is recommended that information that lacks a reputable source be commented out rather than removed.

  • <!-- comment -->


Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.

Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but do not remove large tracts of information without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion. If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, comment it out and discuss it on the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the article by adding the {{fact}}, {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} templates. If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information. When removing information be very careful to do so politely and with civility.

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking.

Self-published sources

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.