Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The article concludes: "For [Bury], the problem isn't so much the reliability of Wikipedia's content so much as the way in which it's used." "It's already become the first port of call for the researcher", Bury says, before noting that this is "not necessarily problematic except when they go no further".
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 2 March 2025. For satirical news, see List of satirical news websites. This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. Fake news websites are those which intentionally, but not necessarily solely ...
With the Wikipedia now having more than fifty five million articles, it is already well over twenty times the size of what was previously the world's largest encyclopedia (the largest edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which contains 65,000 articles). With each new article, information is becoming more accessible than it ever has before.
The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing. [note 3] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are ...
The number of Wikipedia articles grew exponentially from October 2002 to October 2006. By 2009, new article growth had become logarithmic. [4]Currently the Wikipedia has over 6,926,315 articles, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, eclipsing even the Yongle Encyclopedia (completed in 1408), which held the record for nearly 600 years. [5]
Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", [1] nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that pro-fringe believers don't like some of our articles shows that we must be doing something right. Because Wikipedia has a bias towards use of reliable sources that is rooted in an actual policy ...
The guidelines for verifiability, notability and reliable sources, followed to the letter, would mean that any news event which was independently reported by multiple news reporting services on any given day could have a Wikipedia article, even if it were the most trivial coverage or sensationalistic story. Notability has no time value, so any ...