Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your IP address, 192.76.8.84, is registered to University of Oxford and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.
In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Obviously, as you said, we don't need an explicit policy that you can't misrepresent sources, but I did get curious if there is one. All three core content policies have language that alludes to that idea, but none say it outright. WP:HOAX sorta says it but also not quite. Finally did find it—WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #2. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I think this would fall under WP:V - All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material — in this case the sources provided do not "directly support the material" because the edit is misrepresenting what the sources said.
