Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On November 1, 2020, The Atlantic retracted an article, "The Mad, Mad World of Niche Sports Among Ivy League–Obsessed Parents", after an inquiry by The Washington Post. An 800-word editor's note said, "We cannot attest to the trustworthiness and credibility of the author, and therefore we cannot attest to the veracity of the article."
An item is assessed for credibility based on likelihood and levels of corroboration by other sources. Notation uses a numeric code, 1-6. Accuracy of data [2] 1 - Confirmed by other sources: Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; Consistent with other information on the subject
Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four or more calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus ...
According to Ewen Montagu, John Godfrey devised this system when he was director of the Naval Intelligence Division (N.I.D.) around the time of World War II. [5] The system employed by the United States Armed Forces rates the reliability of the source as well as the information. The source reliability is rated between A (history of complete ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Numerous media sources in specific countries point to particular worries about the data from several countries, and the Wikipedia editing generally follows the usual pattern of judging the reliability of particular media sources, doctors' statements, citizens' groups statements, rather than relying on government agencies' statements alone.
Contested material is just material that another editor has made a reasonable challenge to or where sources disagree. (Whether a person was born on April 19 or April 20 might be contested but it's not an ideological issue.) If it's not contentious, the source is only going to be wrong because of failure of diligence.
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting released a 2003 study arguing that the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources (64%) and left out many anti-war sources (10%). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."