Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes these statements: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
If you see an article that may be inaccurate, you should do the following: Correct it yourself if you can. Add citations to reliable sources to verify the information. If the neutrality of the content is in question, see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for more details about how to handle it. If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see Disputed statement.
A statement is also an implicit claim that the information is known, so a baseless statement is also inaccurate even if not proven false. In Wikipedia, the main mechanism to avoid both is to, rather than removing only statements proven wrong, remove any challenged statements where no policy-compliant source is provided as a basis.
And while Wikipedia itself does not meet the definition of a "reliable source" for articles and there is not likely to be an "outside authority" regarding, e.g. AfDs on schools, there is no reason why Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source for itself in the Wikipedia namespace except that some editors might not care to take the time to do it ...
For this essay to apply, we need to be able to show, unambiguously, that a source is either wrong or very likely to be wrong. If you are reading this because you think the cold streak you've been having disproves climate change, this essay is not for you. This essay concerns cases where, based on an analysis of existing reliable sources for a ...
Just as Wikipedia editors may be blind to their own biases, you may be blind to your own biases. Something which seems obvious to you may be disagreed with by many editors. This may very well be because you are wrong and cannot see it. Accepting that you may be biased and listening to other points of view is the only way to overcome this.
Even though Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it is unlike an encyclopedia in the regard that a professional pool of researchers compile what are considered facts in an encyclopedia. In contrast, Wikipedia's editing is open to anyone, and if a subject is popular, it is biased to the majority (contemporary) opinion of Wikipedia editors.
Facts established by inquiry, or a verifiably accurate statement is the meaning of truth normally used by the natural sciences and in legal contexts. This first kind of true statement may not accord with facts, but it does accord with the facts as they are currently understood, even though there is a chance that the scientific idea might ...