Wikipedia as a reliable source

This may not be completely correct. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. For more information, see en: Sources which are not neutral may sometimes be showing only one side of the facts, which is not useful unless you are writing about opinions which people have.

This Wikipedia as a reliable source not as helpful, because most users do not check the list of unreferenced pages for work to do. However, that does not mean these sources should be avoided, because often it is only the people close to the subject who know some of the facts about it.

Unfortunately, the Simple English Wikipedia has many articles which do not have these kinds of sources, or in fact any sources at all. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.

If they use many words like "wonderful" or "terrible", they may not have a neutral point of view. Identifying reliable sources medicine. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

Sometimes it is very difficult to translate the meaning of these difficult texts into simple words. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking; When only self-published by the vendor, i.

Help with sources Sources used in Wikipedia should have been published. Secondary sources are surveys and interpretations by experts in the particular field. 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.

For such reasons such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited universityand that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index —be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list.

Other documents are written by people who have studied the subject for many years, and many other people have read them carefully to make sure that the information is correct. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

No original research and Wikipedia: A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs.

In general, if a person or organization writes about itself, this writing is not a good source. Reliable sources in science[ change source ] Reliable sources in science need to be 1. Fringe theories[ change source ] Fringe theories are ideas about a subject that most people who know a lot about that subject would strongly disagree with.

Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available most via interlibrary loan or from Proquestcan be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.

Secondary sources, such as meta-analysestextbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. Citing sources has help with how to do this.Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as the easiest source of information about anything and.

Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source of the information for number of reasons, the most important of which are anonymity and failure to introduce a system which would guarantee reliability. Reliable Sources is a Sunday morning talk show on the cable/satellite news network CNN that focuses on analysis of the American news media, currently hosted by Brian Stelter.

The show is broadcast from am to noon ET, from CNN's Time Warner Center studios in New York killarney10mile.comng: Brian Stelter. Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Jump to navigation Jump to search.

Bevor Sie fortfahren...

This This is a guideline about the types of sources which are reliable. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, These are called reliable sources. How. Oct 30,  · Although wikipedia is often acurate, it is not considered reliable. In college, wikipedia is definently not to be used as a reliable source.

I am guessing it would be the same for other Resolved.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Numerous studies have rated Wikipedia's accuracy. On the whole, the web encyclopedia is fairly reliable, but Life's Little Mysteries own small investigation produced mixed results.

Wikipedia as a reliable source
Rated 4/5 based on 91 review