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".
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 ...
Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
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 ...
Wikipedia scored highest on all criteria except readability, and the authors concluded that Wikipedia is as good as or better than Britannica and a standard textbook. [ 24 ] A 2014 perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine examined Wikipedia pages about 22 prescription drugs to determine if they had been updated to include the ...
Wikipedia is not paper, and that is a good thing because articles are not strictly limited in size as they are with paper encyclopedias. Articles steadily become more polished as they develop, particularly if one person is working on an article with reasonable regularity (inclining others to help the original author).
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.
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 ...