Ad
related to: wikipedia reviews for authors
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 ...
Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.
This essay describes the authors of Wikipedia (also called Wiki-authors) and how articles are developed. For the majority of articles, Wikipedia has become an immense " pot-luck dinner ". [ 1 ] The articles are, mostly, a somewhat random collection of information that many people thought to be worthy of interest.
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 ...
External peer review is a Wikipedia project namespace list of reviews of the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and other Wikipedia content posted by newspapers, magazines, and other agencies outside of Wikipedia. Peer reviews are different from general articles about Wikipedia because they give a critique of one or more articles specifically ...
Wikipedia:External peer review, list of reviews of the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and other Wikipedia content posted by third party media ORES review tool , MediaWiki software that identifies possibly damaging edits in watchlists, recent changes lists and contributions lists as "needing review"
Wikipedia is based on consensus of editors, not on credentialism, so the fact that yours won't be directly verifiable isn't really important. We assume good faith, and generally trust you to be honest. A bit more on "credentialism" — authors of scholarly works are listed on the work, and the authority of authors matters a great deal to readers.
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
Ad
related to: wikipedia reviews for authors