Wikipedia:Interviews

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: In an historiographical analysis, interviews are usually primary sources, but may contain secondary source material. Beware of different definitions other fields. Like any primary source, they may be used for sourcing some facts amid a mixture of sourcing types, but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have.

Interviews highlight an interesting tension in Wikipedia policy. On the one hand, interviews can be published in reliable publications; they are regularly found in highly respected news sources such as The New York Times and BBC News. On the other hand, most of the content in an interview comes directly from whoever is being interviewed, and may contain statements that are not accurate or verifiable. The interview may sometimes represent the subject speaking about themselves, in which case it isn't independent of them, or it may represent them speaking on a subject other than themselves, in which case it isn't about the person at all. At first glance, it can be difficult to see where interviews fall with respect to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Are they primary or secondary sources? Do they count as reliable sources, or not? This essay addresses the issues involved.

Beware confounding the analysis by using different definitions. Interviews are frequently the product of journalism, and it may be tempting to apply the journalistic definitions. However, if the interview is to be used to support content on Wikipedia, definitions appropriate to Wikipedia should be used. Wikipedia is not journalism. Wikipedia is historiography.

It is okay to use interviews to source some facts. Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information. You will often need to treat them as primary sources, which will sometimes require in-text attribution. However, the mere fact that a person has been interviewed does not automatically mean that interviewee qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article.

An interview may be preceded by an introduction, and may be followed by a post-interview analysis. This introduction and analysis is not part of the interview.

A published interview may be:

primary or secondary,
independent or non-independent of the subject matter, and
reliable or unreliable for the material it is being used to support in a Wikipedia article,

Who, what, where

Anyone can be interviewed by anyone and about anything. It's helpful to figure out four things before you try to analyze whether the source is useful on Wikipedia:

The interviewer: Is this a recognized journalist?
The interviewee: Is this person an expert, a celebrity, a man on the street?
The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?
The publication: Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews, like Fresh Air with Terry Gross or The Andrew Marr Show? Is it a personal blog? Was it published by the subject or the interviewer? Is it real editorial content genuinely created by that source, or is it a sponsored advertising link that the subject purchased in order to self-publish their own press release?

For example, if a radio journalists asks a politician what his favorite works of classical music are during a radio show, then the interviewer is the journalist, the interviewee is the politician, the subject is the politician's favorite music, and the publication is the radio show. The politician's answers would be primary, non-independent, and authoritative for his own personal preferences in music, but independent of the music and the composers.

Primary or secondary?

Certain types of sources are easy to classify as primary or secondary. A newspaper report, written by an eyewitness, recounting what they saw and heard without commentary, is a primary news source about that event, and a book about the event written by someone who combined the news article with many other sources is a secondary source about the event. Some interviews combine both primary and secondary material, very similar to a book that contains researched content based on prior sources in addition to autobiographical material.

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Statements made by interviewees about subjects they have not personally experienced (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about a historical event) could be either primary or secondary, depending on whether it merely repeats what other sources say or whether it adds analysis, context, comparison, or other transformative thought to the original sources.

Alice Expert says she was thrilled to win the Big History Prize last week: primary source for her feelings
Alice Expert says that Localtown's name is the result of a transcription error in 1792: secondary source for history (also independent)
Alice Expert read an excerpt from a 1793 letter from the mayor's wife during the interview: primary source for the letter's contents
Alice Expert says she has just published a paper explaining her theory about Localtown's history: primary source for her theory

Primary sources are acceptable for supporting claims by interviewees about themselves, and they may be authoritative (e.g., for what the interviewee said during the interview).

Sometimes, publications may include a short bio or other commentary about an interviewee. That content may or may not be secondary. To be secondary, the source has to contain transformative thoughts, which an uncritical parroting of what someone else said lacks.

Independence

The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. For example:

Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source.
Alice Expert talks about a historical event that she has no connection to: independent source.
Alice Expert talks about the role the interviewer's beloved grandfather played in a historical event: Alice is independent of the grandfather, but the interviewer is not.

Independent sources are more generally reliable than sources that have a conflict of interest or are otherwise involved in the subject. However, non-independent sources can be the most reliable source possible, depending upon the material to be supported. An artist stating their motivation is more reliable than an independent person speculating upon it.

It's common for publications to request a short bio from an interviewee. It's common for a short bio to match one from their website or from here on Wikipedia, and for it to be republished uncritically, edited only for space. Material originally written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is not independent of that article's subject.

Reliability

Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material.

Two steps are necessary to determine the reliability of material in an interview. First, we must determine whether the material is primary or secondary as described above, and then the reliability of the publication.

If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself.

While primary-source material from interviews is treated the same as other primary-source materials, it is necessary to verify that the comments attributed to the interviewee were actually made by them. Publications with a reputation for reliability can usually be trusted to report their interviewees' words accurately and without embellishment, but there is no guarantee that other publications will do the same. For example, an interview posted on a blog could have altered the interviewee's words, or even be completely fictitious. If there is any uncertainty about whether a particular interview is a reliable and accurate depiction of what the subject said, then it should not be used and until it can be resolved.

If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions. However, care must be taken to ensure that normal editorial standards have been applied to the material (also, note WP:BLPSPS does not usually allow such sources to be used for claims about other living people). Depending on the publication, such material may not undergo the same level of fact-checking as other types of articles. For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking.

Check for clarifications and corrections

Due to the "off the cuff" nature of many oral interviews, fact-checking of the interviewee's statements is not always as rigorous as it might be if they were submitting a written reply to the same set of questions. Interviewees often say things in interviews that they later realize were inaccurate or incomplete, or have later claimed that their comments were misrepresented or misquoted. It is therefore advisable to check whether the interviewee issues a clarification or correction to their remarks.

Notability

The essence of notability under Wikipedia's notability guideline is a more technical definition than in common language, and is the evidence that the subject has attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time.

Within the broad concept of notability is the general notability guideline and several subject-specific notability guidelines. There we have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note of the subject, and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability.

A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography. At one extreme, a subject may approach a niche magazine and succeed in getting an interview published, which is marginal and only barely more than self published, and may even be discounted under WP:NOTPROMOTION. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything they like. An example would be a fan magazine interview with a celebrity about their new movie or new child. They're not likely to question them sharply on whether the movie is any good or whether motherhood is really a joyful experience. The interviewer is there just to keep the individual talking, not to introduce their own thoughts. These kinds of interviews are broadly unhelpful in establishing notability.

At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts. The interviewer may even present their own evidence challenging claims the interviewee makes and offering their own conclusions in their summary, perhaps calling for action of some kind. Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, it contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline.

If you aren't looking at a reputable publication, you need to consider whether the interview is really an advertisement written and paid for by a marketing campaign that's been dressed up to look like regular content. Self-promoters who are trying to get themselves into Wikipedia have been known to self-publish fake "interviews" created by their own PR agents to user-generated platforms or the "sponsored advertising content" initiatives of websites which participate in that revenue stream, so as to make it appear as though a real media outlet has interviewed them when in reality the "interview" is merely a self-promotional press release.

Trivial content

Avoid using interviews to verify the mere fact that an interview happened. When using interviews as sourcing, use them to support content about the things said in the interview.

N Joe Film was interviewed by Remi Radio in 2015.^[1]

Y In a 2015 interview with Remi Radio, Joe Film said that he moved to New York.^[1]