enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not...

    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.

  3. Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to distinguished professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea.

  4. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a Citable Source - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a...

    Research papers, particularly the one research paper students write in their eleventh grade, have always been an integral part of high school education [4].They stress the need to verify information and teach students how to evaluate sources critically, and as a result, teachers have developed various criteria to help students identify credible sources, an especially important skill in the ...

  5. Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source – describes how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such Wikipedia is a tertiary source. References ^ Bould, Dylan M., et al., References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature , 2014, British Medical Journal , 6 March 2014, 348 DOI , online from BMJ

  6. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing

    If this were true, then it's not clear why anyone, especially in Wikipedia's early history, should ever have had the enthusiasm that they do if that were the case. It is often said that Wikipedia is not reliable as an academic source, but it is a "good starting point" or a "good academic reference." These assertions seem self-contradictory.

  7. Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is...

    Not least in articles about Why Wikipedia is not so great which by no means reflect all the Wikipedia:Criticisms that qualified people have levied on it. Similarly, fanatical or ignorant users adhering to generally good rules to Wikipedia:avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Redirects have failed to recognize the few places where these are in ...

  8. Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

    The 2014 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's official student handbook, Academic Integrity at MIT, informs students that Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source, stating, "the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable ...

  9. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and...

    Wikipedia, like many institutions, has its own lexicon. Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. There are at least two ways in which the term secondary source is used on Wikipedia. This page deals primarily with the classification of reliable sources in terms of article content.