Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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.
To answer this question, some great people have written some explanations and arguments on this page. Everybody should use Wikipedia, either as a source or, if you find deficiencies, as a medium you can make contributions. For comparison, see also Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia: Replies to common objections. You can ...
In other words, the controversy surrounding Wikipedia is generally surrounding its credibility. The editors of Wikipedia are generally anonymous, so it is difficult to identify whether the editor of a page is an expert. This issue in turn raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information Wikipedia presents.
"What are credible sources?: Fact checking". Guides at University of the Sunshine Coast. "Finding Reliable Sources: What is a Reliable Source?". University of Georgia. "Research Basics: How do I know if a source is credible?". Henry Buhl Library at Grove City College. "4 ways to differentiate a good source from a bad source".
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.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Wikipedia has a reputation for cultivating a culture of fact-checking among its editors. [16] Wikipedia's fact-checking process depends on the activity of its volunteer community of contributors, who numbered 200,000 as of 2018. [1] The development of fact-checking practices is ongoing in the Wikipedia editing community. [6]