Cryptozoology and cryptobotany are wholly dependent on sources. After all, a cryptid needs to be sighted and that sighting needs to be documented. However, we cannot make an article for every somewhat-spurious observation of an unknown animal - we need to differentiate between valid and invalid sources.

Examples of valid sources

  • News articles are good sources of information about cryptids as they often refer to witnesses and help demonstrate the notability of certain sightings. Sightings that are reported on by multiple news outlets can even be mentioned in articles.
  • Books are already really good sources of information as they often reference other material which can then be checked for its validity.
  • Film footage and photographs, if they exist, should be mentioned in articles. Examples of acceptable films include the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Gable film and the Doyle film. Whether or not they actually portray the cryptid in question is not important - their credibility can be discussed within the article.
  • Blog posts, if they were published by a significant figure in the cryptozoological sphere or are substantiated with verifiable sources, may also be viewed as valid sources.

Examples of invalid sources

  • Social media posts should be discounted as a valid source of information. Examples of these services include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Reddit. Anybody can easily sign up to these websites and post mountains of blather about how they saw some strange animal on a rainy day so claims that only exist on these services should be discounted.
  • You are not a valid source. The wiki already has an established policy against original research so your personal observations would not be acceptable. However, if your sighting is mentioned in news articles and we can verify your identity, an exception can be made.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.