Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 like JSTOR and Google Scholar.
The CRAAP test is a test to check the objective reliability of information sources across academic disciplines. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. [1] Due to a vast number of sources existing online, it can be difficult to tell whether these sources are trustworthy to use as tools for research.
A reliable source is a published document that experienced Wikipedia editors will accept for supporting a given bit of material in a Wikipedia article.. 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).
When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated.
This page in a nutshell: Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard ...
Reliable sources allow editors to verify that claims in an article are accurate. The higher the quality of the source for the statement it backs up, the more likely that statement is to be accurate. Independent sources help editors to write neutrally and to prove that the subject has received note. Wherever possible, editors should aim to use ...
Scientific credibility has been defined as the extent to which science in general is recognized as a source of reliable information about the world. [19] The term has also been applied more narrowly, as an assessment of the credibility of the work of an individual scientist or a field of research.
Here's a checklist to help organize your evaluation of a source. Remember, this checklist is useful to identify whether a source is likely to be appropriate for general use in an average article. No source is always unreliable for every statement, and no source is always reliable for any statement.