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 ...
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.
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:Verifiability § Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it; Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source; Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, it has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows any user to edit its encyclopedic pages, has led to ...
And a day later it'll be someone arguing that because they're only applying their personal, novel interpretation to a single source, and not synthesizing a novel conclusion from multiple sources, that it's not OR. They're wrong: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source", as stated in the very lead ...
If it's not contentious, the source is only going to be wrong because of failure of diligence. If it's contentious, we also have to be aware of the possibility of deliberate bias. Does the source indeed support the material? For instance, if it supports a quote, do the quoted words indeed appear in the source, and so forth.
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 30 January 2025. There is 1 pending revision awaiting review. 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. (August 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this ...