Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which contributes toward a selection bias to a Northern Hemisphere perspective. This selection bias interacts with the other causes of systemic bias discussed above, which slants the selection to a pro-Northern Hemisphere perspective. [15]
Any article citing PR Newswire, VerticalNews or similar online business news sources should be considered a primary source unless there is evidence—not in the byline but the body of the article—of independent authorship and editorial review in the article you're citing. Searching the subject of the article you're citing may turn up ...
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).
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 ...
Read the Wikipedia article about the source, if one exists. This may give you an idea of whether the source is generally considered reliable, though caution is needed since anyone might have edited the article. Go to the Reliable source/Noticeboard. Locate the text box labelled "Search this noticeboard & archives" and type in the source's name ...
Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
The source is a subject matter expert, not a statistics expert. [6] The source may incorrectly use a method or interpret a result. The source is a statistician, not a subject matter expert. [7] An expert should know when the numbers being compared describe different things.
Particularly 1.5 ignores corporate ownership as a potential source of bias. 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review. 5.1 only states that a methodology exists but the link to the actual posted methodology is absurdly vague. 6.2 points to a corrections page but articles to do with hot-button social ...