Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes these statements: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
If you see an article that may be inaccurate, you should do the following: Correct it yourself if you can. Add citations to reliable sources to verify the information. If the neutrality of the content is in question, see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for more details about how to handle it. If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see Disputed statement.
For this essay to apply, we need to be able to show, unambiguously, that a source is either wrong or very likely to be wrong. If you are reading this because you think the cold streak you've been having disproves climate change, this essay is not for you. This essay concerns cases where, based on an analysis of existing reliable sources for a ...
A statement is also an implicit claim that the information is known, so a baseless statement is also inaccurate even if not proven false. In Wikipedia, the main mechanism to avoid both is to, rather than removing only statements proven wrong, remove any challenged statements where no policy-compliant source is provided as a basis.
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).
And while Wikipedia itself does not meet the definition of a "reliable source" for articles and there is not likely to be an "outside authority" regarding, e.g. AfDs on schools, there is no reason why Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source for itself in the Wikipedia namespace except that some editors might not care to take the time to do it ...
In May 2005, a user edited the biographical article on John Seigenthaler Sr. so that it contained several false and defamatory statements. [10] The inaccurate claims went unnoticed between May and September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S. Johnson, Jr., a friend of Seigenthaler.
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 19 January 2025. 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 ...