Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Screenshot of Wiki-Watch rating of the article Reliability of Wikipedia rated as reliable source and additional orange WikiTrust marks for questionable edits. While experienced editors can view the article history and discussion page, for normal users it is not so easy to check whether information from Wikipedia is reliable.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.
Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in ...
Transcripts of content are generally not reliable unless produced by a reliable source. The opinions of a fan site owner or owners are generally not reliable - anyone can set up a web site and claim to be part of an "editorial team" without establishing a widely known reputation for fact checking and content control.
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 18 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 ...
If there is no published information that discusses a topic, then Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that topic. If an article does not have reliable sources, the information in the article is non-verifiable. Because verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement for an article, an article lacking reliable sources should be deleted.
Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing. [notes 3] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Wikipedia succeeds because it does not require authorship, and its anonymous authors contribute reliable information both for online reputation and intrinsic values; Wikipedia's editors contribute to share information to the world. The online source is not original research; in fact, Wikipedia prohibits original research [31]. Thus, the ...