Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal, using a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science), and concluded: "While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 22 December 2024. Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Criticism of Wikipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ...
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
This page in a nutshell: Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard ...
Research papers, particularly the one research paper students write in their eleventh grade, have always been an integral part of high school education [4].They stress the need to verify information and teach students how to evaluate sources critically, and as a result, teachers have developed various criteria to help students identify credible sources, an especially important skill in the ...
A peer-reviewed paper noted the "social stratification in the Wikipedia society" due to the "admins class".The paper suggested that such stratification could be beneficial in some respects but recognized a "clear subsequent shift in power among levels of stratification" due to the "status and power differentials" between administrators and other editors.
Wikipedia is considered one of the major free open source websites, where millions can read, edit and post their views for free. Therefore Wikipedia takes the effort to provide its readers with well-verified sources. Meticulous fact-checking is an aspect of the broader reliability of Wikipedia.
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [8] [9] A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies.