Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
(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".
Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; contributors (known as "editors") are not required to provide any identification or an email address. A 2009 study of Dartmouth College in the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content. [32]
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.
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 18 December 2024. Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Criticism of Wikipedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ...
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, the site has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, under which anyone can edit most articles, has led to concerns ...
In simple English, Wikipedia editors can basically use anything that has a source and is considered credible. And anyone, of any age, can edit Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it is unlike an encyclopedia in the regard that a professional pool of researchers compile what are considered facts in an encyclopedia. In contrast ...
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias. [8] [9] 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.
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.