Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE). Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately.
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than ...
This is a project to work towards guidelines for History-related articles equivalent to those about reliable sources for medical articles. History articles should always comply with the major content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
A known example is the Sacha Baron Cohen article, where false information added in Wikipedia was apparently used by two newspapers, leading to it being treated as reliable in Wikipedia. [124] [better source needed] This process of creating reliable sources for false facts has been termed "citogenesis" by xkcd webcomic artist Randall Munroe.
Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you ought be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence. Reliable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books written by researchers for students and researchers, which can be found in academic databases and search engines like JSTOR and Google Scholar.
The question of Wikipedia credibility has been raised by a number of sources. A September 8, 2004 Washington Post article included the following: Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., conceded that at its best, some Wikipedia entries reflect the collective wisdom of many contributors. He also stated: "The problem with an effort ...
This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines , as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community .