Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The false information lasted for six years and was propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers, and even a few books published by university presses. [1] [2] The reliability of Wikipedia and its volunteer-driven and community-regulated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested.
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).
Wikipedia should not cite itself, but circular referencing and fact-laundering are possibilities if we are unaware that sources we use copy from Wikipedia. Lists are at Wikipedia:Republishers and WP:MIRRORS. Some examples that appear in Google Books and are frequently inadvertently used by editors are:
(e.g., Bill Clinton did this good thing but some say it was bad. He also did this bad thing but some say it was not so bad as opposed to Bill Clinton did this thing and then that thing.) To put it another way, good writing makes NPOV flow like an encyclopedia; not-so-good writing makes it flow like "Crossfire".
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 is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, or coining new words.
Wikipedia is simply not interested in them, except if they are so spread that they become notable and verifiable, eg, part of a culture. This does not also mean that Wikipedia is never biased: a methodology isn't an instantaneous nor foolproof solution, it takes time to converge [ a ] to a 100% encyclopedic state satisfying a totally neutral ...
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.