TheVault:Source Guidelines

THE VAULT DOCUMENT

Source Guidelines

DOCUMENT TYPE Editorial Guideline

STATUS Active

VERSION 1.0

The Vault Source Guidelines define how sources should be selected, evaluated and cited when creating or editing articles within The Vault.

Reliable sourcing is essential when documenting paranormal claims, historical mysteries, unexplained events and controversial subjects. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that information presented within The Vault can be traced, evaluated and understood.

Sources should help establish:

• What is documented.
• What has been reported.
• What investigations have taken place.
• What evidence exists.
• What explanations have been proposed.

The presence of a source does not automatically prove a claim is true. Sources provide information that must still be evaluated.

General principles

All sources used within The Vault should be:

• Relevant to the subject being documented.
• Clearly identifiable.
• Properly cited.
• Represented accurately.
• Evaluated within their context.

Articles should avoid presenting claims, interpretations or beliefs as established facts unless supported by appropriate evidence.

Types of sources

Primary sources

Primary sources are original records created close to the time of an event or by people directly involved.

Examples include:

• Official documents.
• Government records.
• Police reports.
• Court records.
• Military records.
• Contemporary newspaper reports.
• Original photographs.
• Original recordings.
• Investigation reports.
• Witness statements.

Primary sources are often valuable because they provide direct information.

However, a primary source should still be assessed critically. A witness statement confirms that a person reported an experience, but does not automatically confirm the explanation of that experience.

Secondary sources

Secondary sources analyse, interpret or summarise information from other sources.

Examples include:

• Books.
• Documentaries.
• Academic publications.
• Historical research.
• Reputable journalism.
• Museum or archive publications.

Secondary sources are useful for:

• Historical context.
• Previous research.
• Background information.
• Comparing different interpretations.

Where possible, secondary sources should be supported by primary material.

Specialist sources

Some subjects covered by The Vault require specialist sources.

Examples include:

• Paranormal investigation groups.
• UFO research organisations.
• Cryptozoology researchers.
• Folklore researchers.
• Local historians.
• Independent investigators.

These sources may be used to document:

• Reported cases.
• Investigations.
• Research activity.
• The development of legends or claims.

Specialist sources should be accurately represented.

A paranormal investigation report demonstrates that an investigation took place. It does not automatically prove that paranormal activity occurred.

Evaluating sources

When assessing a source, consider:

Authorship

Who created the source?

Consider:

• Their expertise.
• Their involvement with the subject.
• Any potential conflicts of interest.

Date

When was the source created?

A contemporary report may provide valuable historical information, while a later retelling may contain changes or embellishments.

Purpose

Why was the source created?

Sources may exist to:

• Report information.
• Document research.
• Entertain.
• Promote a viewpoint.
• Sell a product.

The purpose of a source affects how it should be interpreted.

Evidence provided

Does the source provide:

• Original information?
• References?
• Documentation?
• Supporting evidence?

A claim repeated without evidence should not be treated as strong support.

Paranormal claims and sourcing

Many subjects within The Vault involve claims that cannot currently be scientifically verified.

When documenting paranormal claims, articles should separate:

The report

What witnesses, investigators or sources claim happened.

The evidence

What information exists to support or challenge the claim.

The interpretation

Possible explanations for the event.

Example:

Incorrect:

The investigation proved the building was haunted.

Preferred:

The investigation reported unexplained events which investigators interpreted as possible paranormal activity.

Witness testimony

Witness accounts are important sources, particularly for historical and unexplained events.

However, testimony should be considered alongside:

• Number of witnesses.
• Time between event and report.
• Consistency of accounts.
• Opportunity to observe.
• Environmental conditions.
• Possible alternative explanations.

A sincere witness may still be mistaken.

Photographs, video and audio evidence

Visual and audio material should be evaluated carefully.

Consider:

• Original source.
• Date and location.
• Authenticity.
• Editing or manipulation.
• Metadata where available.
• Alternative explanations.
• Independent analysis.

A photograph or recording may demonstrate that something was captured, but interpretation requires further investigation.

Repeated claims and source chains

Multiple sources repeating the same information do not necessarily represent independent confirmation.

Example:

• Website A publishes a claim.
• Websites B, C and D repeat Website A.

This remains one original claim rather than four independent sources.

Researchers should identify the original source where possible.

Conflicting sources

Historical and paranormal subjects often contain conflicting accounts.

When sources disagree:

• Identify the disagreement.
• Present significant versions.
• Avoid choosing the most dramatic account.
• Explain why one source may be considered more reliable.

Example:

"Later accounts describe the event differently from contemporary records."

Unsupported claims

Information should not be included simply because it is widely repeated.

Claims without identifiable sources should be:

• Removed.
• Clearly labelled as unverified.
• Investigated further before inclusion.

Sources and evidence ratings

Sources contribute to evidence assessment but do not determine the rating by themselves.

A well-documented claim may still have weak evidence.

A poorly documented claim may still be historically significant.

Evidence assessment considers:

• Source quality.
• Reliability.
• Independent verification.
• Alternative explanations.
• Overall strength of available evidence.

See:

• TheVault:Evidence Rating System

Citation requirements

Significant factual claims should be cited.

This includes:

• Dates.
• Locations.
• Named individuals.
• Investigations.
• Statistics.
• Scientific findings.
• Historical events.
• Controversial claims.

The Vault uses standard MediaWiki citation templates.

Example:

<ref>{{cite web
|title=Example Source
|url=https://example.com
|website=Example Website
}}</ref>

Related documents

• TheVault:Research Methodology
• TheVault:Scientific Method
• TheVault:Evidence Rating System
• TheVault:Case Assessment Process
• TheVault:Writing Guidelines