Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia contains an abundance of articles which are merely a line or two long, and people simply attach {} instead of finding information to add to the topic. Editors who find stubs are often not experts in the subject but want to learn more. Consequently, if they do actually add any content, it might lack in quality.
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
A 2006 article for the Canadian Library Association (CLA) [78] discussed the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example that in controversial topics, "what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with". The author ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 7 March 2025. For satirical news, see List of satirical news websites. This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. Fake news websites are those which intentionally, but not necessarily solely ...
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [6] [7] A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies.
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 ...
Wikipedia, having contributors from many areas of the world, provides its readers with a "world view" that could not be provided simply by a few contributors from a limited region. This also serves to eliminate cultural bias in articles. To use an extended metaphor, Wikipedia is very fertile soil for knowledge.
[100] This was criticized by historian Robert Tombs, who called it "morally indefensible, at least as bad as Holocaust denial, because 'linking ideology and killing' is the very core of why these things are important. I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to be careful and balanced.