Talk:Franchising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to what might be expected, there is no federal registry of franchising or any federal filing requirements for information. Instead, states primarily collect data on franchising companies and enforce laws and regulations regarding their spread.

I'm not sure I understand why this would be contrary to expectations. --Brion 05:51 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I dont know what the original writer of this article had in mind by "contrary to what might be expected", but I personally would expect the overseeing of franchises to be at the national level rather than the state level. Almost all franchises are national. To oversee them at the state level would entail incredible duplication of effort, inefficiencies, and wastefulness. user:mydogategodshat

How about a list of Franchises?

[edit] French Derivation of Franchise?

Last time I checked, the french work for "free" was "libre"... Anybody care to explain? --MK

You probably just didn't check hard enough... See e.g. [1] -- Naphra

Bold text--203.177.228.44 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC) libre is spanish term for free...dont yah know it?! or u dont get it?!!

Franchise comes from Old French franchise, from franche, feminine of franc, meaning "free" or "exempt" -- Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. CZmarlin 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franchises can be small businesses, too!

As an employee of a family-owned and -operated franchise, I disagree with people denigrating franchised businesses on the grounds that it's putting "independent" and/or "locally-owned" establishments out of business. Our franchised business puts more money directly into our community than any so-called independently-owned local competitor. (My establishment works in the tourism industry, so we're actually capturing several million dollars of revenue from out-of-town tourists and funneling it directly into the local market with the exception of our 3% franchise fee and the goods we must purchase from out of state.) In fact, most of our direct, franchised competitors are owned by local businessmen. Only one of our competitors is corporately owned, and none of the franchises is owned by out-of-town corporations.

Same goes for several other franchises in our town, like restaurants. I think McDonald's has three separate franchise agreements in town (with 15 restaurants), and all three are owned by local families. Our Taco Bell franchisee is a local businessman, and so is Subway. Chili's (with the exception of the one in the airport terminal) is locally owned, as are the three new Carl's Jrs. These local franchise owners contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to our local economy and provide large gifts to local non-profit organizations. Yes, the cost of the supplies and franchise fees goes out of state (such as the Taco Bell condiments, which I know are trucked in from out of state), but the profits and employee's wages stay right here in town.

So, perhaps in other areas, franchises are owned by conglomerate corporations that funnel money to well-to-dos in high rises on the opposite coast, but franchises can just as easily be locally-owned, huge supporters of the community.

I was going to recommend rewording this in this article, but when I reread the article to suggest a rewording, I realized I misread it the first time. Still, there's a slight sound of anti-franchise bias in this statement: "Many retail sectors, particularly in the United States, are now dominated by franchising to the point where independently-run operations are the exception rather than the rule." So, ignore everything I just said...? :-)

cluth 08:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the origin of 'Franchise'

The origin of Franchise does seem to be old French. This page http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=franchise&searchmode=none gives the following etymology: "c.1290, from O.Fr. franchise "freedom," from variant stem of franc "free" (see frank). Sense narrowed 18c. to "particular legal privilege," then "right to vote" (1790). Meaning "authorization by a company to sell its products or services" is from 1959". Another page http://www.franinfo.com/history.html provides a longer history of the evolution of the concept. There too, it mentions the original meaning to be 'privilege or freedom'. Priyatu 07:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, though franc still exists with the same meaning in Modern French, notably in the term franc-maçon, 'freemason'. -- Blisco 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External linkspam

Let me explain why I deleted the Blue MauMau "Franchipedia" link before. It appears to be run in the manner of a blog. WP:EL notes that blogs are to be avoided unless the subject of the article is a blog or the blog has been carefully reviewed. I'm not familiar with bluemaumau or Franchipedia--is the wiki itself not part of the blog? The style is confusing, so it's hard to determine what's the blog and what's not. The articles seem to be less of a wiki and more of a blog from what I've read (no citations of information, articles include blog-like "trackback" feature, comments section, member-rating of article system--all the signs of a blog). Before I pass judgement again and remove the link, I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this external link, since it's a little more murky than, say, any of the other external links I've removed. Thanks! Rkitko 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Some of the articles on the site are also copies with slight modifications on the wikipedia articles with the same name. For example, see Howard Johnson's and Blue MauMau's Howard Johnson's article. An external link that doesn't add much new content besides what's already on Wikipedia isn't of much value, in my humble opinion (Wikipedia policy prefers internal wiki links over external links). Any thoughts? Rkitko 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking through some of the site, I agree it's somewhere in the gray area between "obvious spam" and "authoritative resource". It looks like a combination of a blogging system and a wiki. Since the site has other relevant information in addition to blogs, Wikipedia's general guideline to avoid links to blogs doesn't necessarily apply. It looks like there's a small amount of original material (e.g. [2]) in addition to that copied from Wikipedia.

However, there are a few reasons why the link should arguably be removed. Within the article,

Blue MauMau's Franchipedia Project has an audio interview with Kentucky Fried Chicken's first franchisee, Harman's Cafe of 1952 that gives an insight....

sounds like a classic example of an attempt to promote a website. And as you say, there's just not much there that Wikipedia doesn't already provide. Furthermore, it's not a good idea to include a link based on promises of future improvement ("currently documenting franchise history one company at a time"), since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new websites. Thus I think we should remove the link for now, but revisit the decision as the site matures. Wmahan . 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The audio file of an interview with one of the first modern franchises is incredibly interesting from a historical business perspective. I wish there were podcasts about the A&W business model of 1919 but there isn't. (I understand Blue MauMau is working on it.) Harman's KFC Cafe is one of the earliest recorded franchise models that we have on the Net. It explains how the franchise was organized and different dynamics in the give and take of owners and corporate staff in the early days. The name "Kentucky Fried Chicken" comes from that original franchise owner in Utah, who felt it sounded more exotic and friendlier than Utah Fried Chicken. My vote is to link to the article. But again, this is more of the business of franchising and not so much the consumer perspective of what store and what product came when. Wikipedia should try to link to trade wikipedias because the emphasis will be different. In other words, if a trade group such as doctors want to create a trade wikipedia, it is in wikia's interest to link with such articles and insights. Harry Maeda 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate information?

(moved from User talk:Harry Maeda)

There is information on this page that is not entirely correct. I have attempted to change some of the mistakes in franchise early history. It did not start with Howard Johnson's in the 1930s. That is much too late. A&W was considerably earlier, starting in Lodi, CA in 1919. Their owners, Alfred and Walter, stated that they copied the older franchise model of tire companies.

In regards to hotel franchises in Wales between hotels and bars in the 1850s, this is possible but documents and links would be greatly appreciated to collaborate the claim.

You can find an ongoing project of early franchise history at [the Franchipedia], an online franchise wikipedia project. Your comments there would be much welcome.

This statement is also debatable. "Many retail sectors, particularly in the United States, are now dominated by franchising to the point where independently-run businesses are the exception rather than the rule." An example should be used to substantiate it.

I do not want to declare this page in dispute but would prefer discussing the issues first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Maeda (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And my reply to Harry, left on his talk page:

Greetings, Harry. I'm going to move your statements over to Talk:Franchising as that's where I think you meant to place them. Also, don't forget to sign your name on talk pages with four tildas (~~~~). I'd also appreciate your thoughts on what I wrote at Talk:Franchising#External linkspam. Please also remember that you must have sources for your contributions that claim certain facts. Such as your claim that "Franchising dates back to at least the 1850s" -- here above you admit you don't have a source for that claim (print or online). I'm going to also put in the standard wiki welcome, which will give you general links to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Hope all of this helps! If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk page or at Talk:Franchising if it's related to that topic. Thanks! Rkitko 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the link to the Wikipedia guidelines. I will respond shortly. Good to be here. Harry Maeda 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We're glad to have you and look forward to a full future of productive edits! I hope you find all of those links helpful. Being a new wikipedian is kind of overwhelming--I haven't even sifted through all of the policies yet. Again, let me know if there's any question I can help answer or direct you to where you might find the answer. Best, --Rkitko 17:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Hope this works. Just to be clear, I did not say that "Franchising dates back to at least the 1850s." That statement already existed in the article. I asked that references be provided. I've not heard that and have several leaders in the Australian franchise scene that have not heard that. It may be true but providing references would be safest. --Harry Maeda 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize for saying you put that statement in! To be honest, I haven't read the whole article. As explained below, I just watch the page because of heavy linkspam activity. More comments below, I just wanted to apologize up here for that. Best, Rkitko 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the Wiki rules. (There's quite a few of them!)I'm waiting for anyone else to respond to your comments.

Point 1. Blue MauMau is a social media or community, much like Wikipedia. However, these are not college kids that are copying news materials that already exists on the Net. It isn't MySpace or Blogger. First, it is a vertical community that has tremendous originality. (See the article on Hospitality Experts Say Market Fine.) On Blue MauMau franchise CEOs (see Editors Note to CEO), well-known franchise consultants and experts contribute articles. The comments such franchise insiders make is highly news worthy and informative. The confusion may occur because Blue MauMau has a blog section, where experts write columns.

Point 2. It has an online franchise encyclopedia, the Franchipedia project, where it is trying to jump start from a business perspective the history of franchising in this country. The Franchipedia project in some cases has copied articles from Wikipedia such as the McDonald's entry so that readers can contribute something from something rather than from nothing.

But there are stark differences. The few franchise entries in wikipedia about franchising tend to be consumer oriented, e.g. "Shamrock shake started in 1970". The Franchipedia project wants to comment more on the development of the franchise business model. As more writers contribute, the few articles in Wikipedia and also in Blue MauMau will diverge because perspectives and aim is different. Most importantly, the Franchipedia Project is a trade wikipedia that is open to all. It doesn't just allow one company to gather, edit and publish information like FranData, Franchise Business Review or NewRules.org?? You do not even have to be a member of the Franchipedia community to contribute so it is true to Wiki principles of being open to all.

Blue MauMau is trying to work with Wikipedia. These two communities can help each other with relevent articles. For these reasons and more, my suggestion is that an external link to the Franchipedia project be listed to encourage people to contribute to its body of business knowledge.

Franchising Errors and Gaps: Whoever is contributing to the Wikipedia entry, there are big pieces of franchising that are not quite right or that are missing. There is little mention about the beginnings of modern business format franchising. Until I came last week, you actually wrote the first modern franchise was Howard Johnsons in the 30s. There's no mention of such basic franchise concepts as "churning", "retrofranchising", and much more. An open franchise wikipedia can help Wikipedia get its own facts straight through franchise consultants, experts and CEOs.

Harry Maeda 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harry_Maeda"

I'm gone through this article one more time to find many errors. (1) It describes only business format franchising as "franchising" hence, overview, advantages and disadvantages sections are misleading. (2) Many minor areas that mislead, such as the origins of the word,"Franchising (from the French for free)". That's technically correct but misleading. Reader needs a better understanding of the French word "Frank" from which franchise has been derived. (3) Legal aspect such as major cases impacting business format franchising are missing. Dates and explanations are not correct.

Harry Maeda 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry, this is excellent that you're locating errors and wish to make this article better! I'm glad someone is finally taking an interest in this topic. I admit I know next to nothing in this realm--I just keep this page and Corporate social responsibility on my watchlist because both tend to have high linkspam (see also: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided) activity.

I agree that wikipedia should pay attention to other wikis, and it does (for example, the Star Trek page has a link to the Star Trek wiki). But, like Wmahan said above, it appears that BlueMauMau is somewhere in the grey area between a blog and an authoritative source. In my surfing on that site, I haven't noticed many articles that are using citations of where the information came from. Usually, I try to obtain the original source and cite it instead of a secondary source (like a website citing an academic article). Other guidelines that might be helpful here that you may not have stumbled upon:

Specifically, as you add new information or verify old information, try to use the new "ref" tags, which are explained here. And if you're like me and need to see these tags in action in a real article, I have implemented them in the Triggerplant article--so check that out to see how the wikitext/html works and produces the references. I'll certainly help you with the technical kinks, but since I don't know much about the subject here, I won't be of much help with the text. Hope all of this helps. Let me know if I can answer any questions you have. Cheers, Rkitko 20:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys are way, way off on this. The entries to the history of franchising and external sources are not from a spambot. They link back to a site that seems to be largely a guild of franchise CEOs, Presidents, VPs and experts yet you call their articles and columns to the industry a personal blog that doesn't meet Wiki standards. (T'aint so, not according to the standards that you cite). The site isn't a single blogger or person trying to promote themselves. It has almost no advertising and it is not a corporation trying to promote itself. The Franchipedia section on the cite is obviously an open, growing, free encyclopedia specializing in a trade. It links to primary sources, which includes original participants in the growth and history of 20th Century franchising who share original stories (such as the KFC first franchisee story), and yet you say that it lacks originality and that it does not cite enough secondary evidence.

This is crazy thinking for building the knowledge of the history of companies and an industry. I guess it has to be done by future students of the next generation who have the time and the technical Internet skills (or whatever it will be then). Apparently if these CEO / authors write it on the Franchipedia now, it doesn't count as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Good luck getting experts. You've turned me off.

Cliff Landon 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I never said the external links were generated by a spambot. Linkspam can be generated by a real person (internally: excess intrawiki linking or externally: linking to a site specifically to promote it). Notice above the ambiguity over the intent for placing the link on this article.

As for verifiability, how can we verify that the content of BlueMauMau is indeed written by these CEOs, VPs, and Presidents? Personally, when I'm citing sources of information, I trust print sources or official websites (most likely official annual reports and the like). I looked again through the site and the only articles I ran through that cited any source at all were the ones copied from Wikipedia. I never said the entries on the Franchipedia lack originality. And from what I've seen, they don't cite any primary, secondary, or even tertiary literature. I admire what they're trying to do over at BlueMauMau, but we can't use them as a verifiable source of information just yet.

One more thing: Wikipedia, mostly, does not rely on "experts," though we have quite a few. A well-researched article can be written by anyone on any topic. For example, I know little about AI and computer technology or fractals, yet I wrote the entry on TechnoSphere, citing primary sources (published personal accounts of the people involved, newspaper articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc.). I do wish that, instead of disagreeing with Wikipedia policy and my opinions on this matter, we could move forward and expand this article with accurate information. And please do remember that I am but one Wikipedian--do not judge the entire site by one person's actions or opinions. You can certainly ask an admin to review the situation for you, if you wish. Just place {{helpme}} on your talk page with an explanation and link and they will help out. Best, --Rkitko 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rkitko. Yes. I see the article and the nomenclature to reference a work. I'm not much of a programmer. I'm a busy business guy. I'll look at how to do the referencing and Wiki nomenclature a little more though to see if I can grasp it. I might have to leave this to younger folks than me.

Harry 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly help you with the reference "tags". As you add information, just place the reference in parenthesis (at the end of a paragraph or particular statement that came from a specific source) and then I'll run through the article after your contributions and apply the ref tags. Unless, of course, you want the practice at it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help :-) Rkitko 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The section that lists the various components of the Franchise Agreement confuses the Franchise Agreement with the UFOC. For example, items 2 through 5 are elements of disclosure, not contract.--146.145.125.169 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Legal Aspects section contains inaccurate information about the Franchise Agreement. Specifically, it confuses aspects of franchise disclosure with franchise contract (Sections 4 and 5, "Litigation history" and "Bankruptcy history" are elements of disclosure, and have no place a Franchise Agreement, which is a contact). I do not know how to solve this problem without removing the offending section or retitling it, so I wanted to post my concern first.--146.145.125.131 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove those items from the list which are not normally a part of the franchise contract. If you want, add a paragraph about franchise disclosure, with the normal elements listed separately. Argyriou (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph clarifying the issue as well as a list of common Franchise Agreement points. I also properly retitled the original list as clauses found in a UFOC, not Franchise Agreement. I have researched many franchises for my job, and have read many UFOC's, Franchise Agreements, and other literature pertaining to the topic. As a result, however, I could not think of any authoritative source besides the documents themselves, which isn't practical. Therefore, the new information is still in need of proper sourcing.--146.145.125.131 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] external link spam?

The following was recently removed for being external link spam, but the information provided in the posting is accurate as provided and the link to the FRANdata website is just a sitation of reference for the information. FRANdata is an information company which provides plenty of franchising facts to major publications within the franchising world and publishes free newsletters which are full of similar information. I do not see the reason the following information was removed.

FRANdata^[1] estimates that on average, 100 documents are distributed per franchisor per year. This represents 200,000 UFOCs distributed each year in the US alone. FRANdata also estimates the cost of each UFOC to be near $100.^[2]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frandata (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Question

Off the top of my head, I'm recalling a significant change to Franchise Law in the US that occurred in 1938, but I can't find anything in Google searches citing that Law. Anybody have a clue as to what the name of that Act is? If I recall properly, the Senate debate was quite high profile, with all the Mom and Pop's in America claiming Franchising would kill Main Street America. Have Gun, Will Travel 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute this fact:

"Due to the disadvantages such as those listed above, the average success rate of franchisee in the United States in the early 2000's is only around 25%, and the average income of these survivors is only around $30,000.[citation needed]"

Where is this data from? The success rate for franchises is much higher (vs. non-franchise independent businesses), according to this site [3]

According to Franchise World Magazine, a franchise business has a 92% success rate after 5 years compared to a 23% success rate of an independent business after the same period of time.

Note that Schooley Mitchell is trying to sell franchises, and Franchise World is published by the IFA, which has repudiated the success rate claims (normally given as 95%, but in this example as 92%). Notwithstanding the hostility on this site to BlueMauMau's site, BMM does have some articles discussing why it is difficult to give a "success" rate for a franchised location in the first place. Readers who think that franchising somehow reduces inherent business risk are fooling themselves, and should look at the studies by Shane, Bates, and Purvin which demonstrated to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.123.229 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one Franchise bankruptcy to every 40 independent business bankruptcies in North America (5,000 vs. 200,000 annually, respectively).

Although only 3% of businesses in North America are Franchises, 40% of retail and service business is conducted by those franchises every year.

There are now over 600,000 Franchises with over $600 billion in sales in North America.

Rfein1 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Much of this content is also on ths site. Please addressLeadSongDog (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? I couldn't find any.--agr (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this search, this search or this search for starters. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The site your first search bring up, youshouldfranchise.com, has a copyright date of 2007; the sentence that matches was added to our article on 18 March 2005 by a long term editor. The second search brings up a site that explicitly credits Wikipedia. The third search site has the matching text in a sidebar. Also the fact that the 3 searches bring up different sites strongly suggests to me that it is Wikipedia that is being copied here. I suspect this will be an increasing problem with the type of search you are using. --agr (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is the case here. I am extremely careful to draft from scratch (see my work at Lawyer and Roger Traynor) and I add far more citations to reliable sources than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. I have seen a lot of private sites copying Wikipedia content because they figure that they are so small that Wikipedia will not waste its own funds trying to sue them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For new content, I believe the absence of a CorenSearchBot hit would be reasonable grounds to assume the content isn't on the web. I'm not sure when CSB started up. In this case the absence of citations still leaves the WP:NOR issue.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:24.166.188.91

This anonymous IP editor from Kansas City, Missouri has been assiduously grinding out new and modified prose content in the article, but not providing citations or referencing of any form, despite the need having been clearly explained in the user talk page (no reply seen there). While loathe to do so, I've reverted the changes made. If the edits continue, it appears that there will be no option but to assume it is original research. If this is you, please understand that your contribution of high quality prose would be most welcome, but that verifiability is a core policy for wikipedia that must be maintained. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages ---Less Chance of Failure

This "heading" is misleading in itself. As per the quoted source in this section, even the Internation Franchise Association has disclaimed that franchising is less risky than independent businesses. This is not "neutral" and just misleading. Perhaps, Chances of Failure would be a more accurate heading since there has been no consensus one way or the other on the matter of whether or not franchising is less risky than starting you own business. This subject in itself is a red herring to divert the attention of the buyers of franchises as to the risk of failure, as demonstrated by the performance of the ex-franchisees and the current franchisees of franchise systems.

CJ KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I haven't looked at the article in a while, but it seems like the advantages and disadvantages sections are not sourced at all, and the "LCoF" subsection has a source that's not easily checked. If we can't find sources that meet WP:RS, i.e. not associations, Entreprenuer advertorials, company/consulting websites, etc., then I say we should remove the sections completely. Flowanda | Talk 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! One of the greatest disadvantages of franchising that isn't indicated under the Disadvantages is that franchisees are not promised profits and can stand and must often remain standing at breakeven status the entire duration of the contract with NO profits because under the terms of all franchise agreements, they will lose their investments if they don't pay their royalties and if they don't service their debt, and if they terminate early. Unlike independent businesses, an owner of a franchise can't just negotiate with his Landlord and close up an unprofitable business. Break-even franchises that operate with cheap labor do feed the profits of the franchisors who earn their royalties on gross sales of the business of the franchisee when the franchisee is operating at a LOSS, a PROFIT, or BREAKEVEN. This is a great disadvantage to franchisees who can be indentured in low paying jobs in breakeven businesses for the entire term of the contrac. This is the great advantage for the franchisors who can grow their profits and reduce their risk because it is the franchisee whno puts everything at risk when they build and finance the physical unit that wears the brand name. CJ KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article contain an "external link" only to the IFA and not to the AFA or the AAFD? CJKC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk)

In most cases the answer to questions like that is that nobody's done it yet. Do you have links?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that some of the advantages of franchising that have been removed should be put back in, but perhaps by clarifying that they are "perceived" advantages of franchising. Whether or not a franchise is verifiably less risky than an independent business is to some extent irrelevant if there is a perception that this is true and this perception influences potential franchisees to buy franchises. There is certainly merit in the article explaining why people by franchises, even if their reasoning if not necessarily correct. For a source for advantages (and disadvantages) of franchising (whether perceived or real), see the Franchise Council of Australia(http://www.franchise.org.au/content/?id=185) or the International Franchise Association's fact sheet (http://www.franchise.org/uploadedFiles/Franchise_Industry/Resources/Education_Foundation/Intro%20to%20Franchising%20Student%20Guide.pdf). These may not be completely independent sources, but they are an authority for what perceptions exist in the franchise industry. Incidentally, the Franchise Council of Australia's annual survey reports, among other things, that only 2% of franchises ceased to operate in 2005 (as opposed to being transferred and that franchisees remained in the system for an average of 7 years (http://www.franchise.org.au/content/?action=getfile&id=450). Jubm (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you make a case for using them as a

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:RS WP:RELY WP:RELIABLE

This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

[edit] Overview

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.

[edit] Scholarship

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.
In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist).

[edit] News organizations

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

[edit] Self-published sources

Main article: WP:V#SELF

Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above.

[edit] Extremist and fringe sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.

Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view.

[edit] Reliability in specific contexts

[edit] Biographies of living persons

Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

[edit] Claims of consensus

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

[edit] Usage by other sources

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

[edit] Other examples

See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, business and commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

ar:ويكيبيديا:مصادر موثوقة bg:Уикипедия:Благонадеждни източници ca:Fonts fiables cs:Wikipedie:Věrohodné zdroje el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αξιόπιστες πηγές fa:ویکی‌پدیا:منابع معتبر ko:위키백과:신뢰할 수 있는 출처 id:Wikipedia:Sumber terpercaya it:Wikipedia:Fonti attendibili hu:Wikipédia:Megbízható források ms:Wikipedia:Nyatakan sumber rujukan nl:Wikipedia:Betrouwbaarheid van bronnen ja:Wikipedia:信頼できる情報源 pt:Wikipedia:Fontes fiáveis ro:Wikipedia:Surse de încredere ru:Википедия:Авторитетные источники uk:Вікіпедія:Авторитетні джерела zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源? I can't see how they could be.LeadSongDog (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.