Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia's volunteer editor community has the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content. [1] Their aim is to curb the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation by the website. Wikipedia is considered one of the major free open source websites, where millions can read, edit and post their views for free.
Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; its English-language edition has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s. [4] [5] [6] Article instability and susceptibility to cognitive biases are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia.
These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources .
Moreover, some experts contribute to the articles. Over time, the huge amount of solid work done by hobbyists and experts alike will inevitably build upon itself, therefore greatly improving Wikipedia's body of information. As a result, Wikipedia is an intellectual community, confident that the quality of Wikipedia articles will be high.
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia gains credibility by being Anti-Fringe, factual, calling things by their right names, and confidently opposing Pro-Fringe editors.A dominance of Anti-Fringe editors causes Pro-Fringe editors to be less successful, leave the project, and their loss is a benefit to the project and directly boosts its credibility.
Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help ...
Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor – indeed trivial – factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels.
Wikipedia does have its limitations, but there are effective ways to use this source. Researchers on Wikipedia need to recognize that the articles are in constant flux "and so exercise critical judgment about the information they encounter—a skill we know most English teachers want their students to develop” [11]. Readers are expected to ...