Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The second option was settled on at least provisionally, and then, coincidentally, a new reliable source came out that did question the arrest, a deus ex machina that thankfully resolved the dispute but annoyingly prevented the possibility of a full case study into the extreme edge case of an article where 100% of sources may be wrong. As of ...
a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editors; a list of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources; a list of independent or affiliated sources; a list of self-published or traditionally published sources; a representative sample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existence
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.
It means that Wikipedia is wrong. While at first glance that may appear like a very big problem for Wikipedia, in reality it is not. In fact, it can be seen as a good thing. Wikipedia is a project to build a free encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and Wikipedia is no different in that respect.
Editors use the existence of a publisher as evidence of an effective field review system that would ensure the quality of an author's claims. Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway.
Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answers.com, which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can develop a misleading air of authority because of its presence at such sites: "Then [Seigenthaler's] son discovered that his father's hoax ...
Wikipedia articles need references to reliable sources, and articles themselves are not reliable sources. One Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source for another Wikipedia article, in most cases (there are a very small number of exceptions, such as cases where an article on Wikipedia is about Wikipedia or Wikipedia policies).
Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources. When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources [2]. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. (However, when writing in the summary style detailed referencing may only be necessary in the subarticle and not the summary.)