Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The source reliability is rated between A (history of complete reliability) to E (history of invalid information), with F for source without sufficient history to establish reliability level. The information content is rated between 1 (confirmed) to 5 (improbable), with 6 for information whose reliability can not be evaluated.
D - Not usually reliable: Significant doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past E - Unreliable: Lacking in authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency; history of invalid information F - Reliability cannot be judged: No basis exists for evaluating the reliability of the source
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must be published, on Wikipedia meaning made available to the public in some form. [f] Unpublished material is not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are ...
The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use. 1
Consequently, some judgment and comparison of sources is needed in order to identify reliable sources. Reliable sources respect truth; a source that is commonly untruthful is not reliable. A source may be partly or more or less reliable. Concurrence of possibly reliable sources may help in identifying reliable sources, and editors should seek it.
Many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems. The Romanian Top 100, for example, appears to be a reliable chart, but no stable searchable archive is available. These charts can be included so long as care is taken in providing a reliable source for the information.
Reliability does not imply validity. That is, a reliable measure that is measuring something consistently is not necessarily measuring what you want to be measured. For example, while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for predicting, say, job performance.
E.g. a scale that is 5 pounds off is reliable but not valid. A test cannot be valid unless it is reliable. Validity is also dependent on the measurement measuring what it was designed to measure, and not something else instead. [6] Validity (similar to reliability) is a relative concept; validity is not an all-or-nothing idea.