Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The source reliability is rated between A (history of complete reliability) to E (history of invalid information), with F for source without sufficient history to establish reliability level. The information content is rated between 1 (confirmed) to 5 (improbable), with 6 for information whose reliability can not be evaluated.
D - Not usually reliable: Significant doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past E - Unreliable: Lacking in authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency; history of invalid information F - Reliability cannot be judged: No basis exists for evaluating the reliability of the source
The CRAAP test is a test to check the objective reliability of information sources across academic disciplines. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. [ 1 ] Due to a vast number of sources existing online, it can be difficult to tell whether these sources are trustworthy to use as tools for research.
The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use. 1
The success of an IR system may be judged by a range of criteria including relevance, speed, user satisfaction, usability, efficiency and reliability. [2] Evaluation measures may be categorised in various ways including offline or online, user-based or system-based and include methods such as observed user behaviour, test collections, precision ...
Reliable sources checklist (WP:RSVETTING) Cherrypicking (WP:CHERRYPICK) Potentially unreliable sources ; Reliable source examples ; Topic-specific essays. Identifying reliable sources (history) Identifying reliable sources (law) Identifying reliable sources (science)
The summary document states each review should include, among other things, whether the product or products concerned were based on all sources of available intelligence, properly describe the quality and reliability of underlying sources, properly caveat and express uncertainties or confidence in analytic judgments, and properly distinguish ...
[g] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. [1] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.