Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (for example, a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
The use of modified letters (e.g. those with accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).
No source is always unreliable for every statement, and no source is always reliable for any statement. A source can only be considered reliable when the source's qualities are compared against the qualities editors want to see for a specific statement.
For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.
What I'm trying to do right now is find more and more examples of reliable online resources.--Kim Bruning 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Kim. I don't think we want to try to create an extensive list of reliable online sources. Anything added here should be instructive regarding the reliability of a general category of online sources.
Examples of such promotional journals include Creation Research Society Quarterly, Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and Homeopathy. Be aware of predatory publishers, for example journals published by OMICS Publishing Group. These are very unlikely to be accepted as reliable sources.
A reliable map says that a village called Greenacre exists, rendered in all caps. A crime happens in that area and a news publication says it happened "Near the villages of Green and Acre". A primary source makes a claim that is explicitly called out as wrong by reliable secondary sources. A reliable map says that a village called Greenacre exists.
Attempts have been made at a classification of unreliable narrators. William Riggan analysed in a 1981 study four discernible types of unreliable narrators, focusing on the first-person narrator as this is the most common kind of unreliable narration. [6] Riggan provides the following definitions and examples to illustrate his classifications: