Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fandom, on the other hand, allows content on just about anything and often lacks reliable sources. Many Fandom wikis include content disclaimers, trigger warnings, and spoiler warnings on individual articles. However, all pages on Wikipedia are covered by one content disclaimer, thus Wikipedia does not include disclaimers on a per-page basis ...
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc.
Fandom also allows wikis to have a point of view, rather than the neutral POV that is required by Wikipedia (although NPOV is a local policy on many Fandom communities). [ 58 ] [ 59 ] The image policies of Fandom communities tend to be more lenient than those of Wikimedia Foundation projects, allowing articles with much more illustration.
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).
This page is not an article, and the only criterion for inclusion is consensus that an article fits on this page. Lists of unusual things in Wikipedia mainspace (see Category:Lists of things considered unusual ) should have an external reference for each entry that specifically classifies it as unusual, to avoid making it a point of view (POV ...
Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that major flops and "bombs", whether they are albums, films and concert tours (or music or films which are called "turkeys") should also be covered in the article. Wikipedia is a user-edited website, but it is not a fan website; it is an encyclopedia.
Various collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before the start of Wikipedia, but with limited success. [19] Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. [20]
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 ...