Wikipedia reliable source
Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. But it's a good idea to quote the Quran and Hadith to explain a topic, if they are cited in reliable secondary sources.I agree with Zero, the source is reliable and due because it is a review of a book in question. It makes common sense to summarize the author's views in an article on that book. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Reply ; I agree with Biruitorul, the source is reliable.Are you a pet owner looking for a convenient and reliable source for all your pet needs? Look no further than Chewy.com’s official site. One of the standout features of Chewy.com’s official site is its unparalleled product selection.
Did you know?
Currently, more than 16,000 articles cite Fox News as a source. But its use has been controversial for years. The first major discussion on its reliability took place in 2010. After 28,000 words ...Since the internet itself -- the source of all of Google's results -- includes all sorts of misinformation, one cannot be certain that results returned from Google are absolutely reliable. Google is fine for our everyday use: In everyday life, we often use Google to find generally agreed upon facts about a topic.Wikipedia is an open-source, openly edited online encyclopedia created in 2001. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia featuring openly editable content created and sourced by users from around ...Even if you have a reliable Hoover product, there are times you’ll need to do some troubleshooting. You can do simple, minor repairs on Hoover products if you know the right sources.
Feb 8, 2017 · The site’s rules on reliable sources state: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published, sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared ... Yet, because anyone can write a Wikipedia entry, it’s often highly stigmatized in academic communities. This latest study, however, shows that if consumed carefully, Wikipedia can be a legitimate resource. “The first step is admitting that everyone, from students to doctors, uses Wikipedia,” writes Jake Orlowitz, the head of The Wikipedia ... Jun 3, 2021 · Ahead of a September keynote at IntelliSys 2021, we spoke to Professor Bruckman, a Harvard grad who holds a PhD from the MIT Media Lab, about how to test assumptions—and the definition of truth and... Explain Wikipedia’s history and operations, and how these features can influence the site’s contents. Articulate the appropriate uses of Wikipedia. Participate in Wikipedia as an editor, creator and curator of original content. The Least Reliable Source, Or Is It? Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. Jan 14, 2021 · So is Wikipedia a credible source? Many of the entries are well-documented, checked for quality and — as opposed to reference books — often completely up-to-date, but, 20 years after its ...
Wikipedia makes no guarantee or claim to be a reliable source of information. It has no formal peer review and yes, anyone with a phone/computer and …Wikipedia is an open-source, openly edited online encyclopedia created in 2001. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia featuring openly editable content created and sourced by users from around ... ….
Reader Q&A - also see RECOMMENDED ARTICLES & FAQs. Wikipedia reliable source. Possible cause: Not clear wikipedia reliable source.
Dec 3, 2019 · In fact, Wikipedia systematically compensates for the lack of credentials by heavy emphasis on reliable sources. It is a paradox: Wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular websites in the world according to TopSites, and by most measures it is the most widely read knowledge repository on Earth, but still it is often treated as not worth academic ... The guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources gives general advice on what is and isn't a reliable source; this essay aims to analyse specific examples of sources that might initially appear to be reliable, yet may not be. If in doubt about a source, discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboard.This concept of a 'reliable source' should be questioned itself. The media have so much power and we see this everyday. This is just one small example of what they are capale of doing. The sources have editors who have their own ideology, interests and perspective on not only journalism but also the world around them.
Reuters using Wikipedia as a source does not make Wikipedia a reliable source generally. WP:V : "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", so if someone can cite that YA is a RS, or that the tabloid article for Chabad-Lubavitch article is a RS that would be a start.Sources 70 News A WordPress-hosted site that published a false news story, stating that Donald Trump had won the popular vote in the 2016 United States presidential election; the fake story rose to the top in searches for "final election results" on Google News. ABCnews.com.co (defunct) Owned by Paul Horner.
gas powered weed eater harbor freight WP:BLP requires that any potentially defamatory information about a living person be sourced to a Wikipedia:reliable source (or to the person himself, in a published statement); court filings, or statements made under penalty of perjury, are not adequate. — Arthur Rubin 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ReplyAnswer 12 days ago Reliability of Wikipedia compared to other academic research sources Wikipedia is often considered less reliable than other academic research sources due to the following reasons: Open editing: Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute to its articles. capacitacionesweather kmbc The best kind of sources for Wikipedia are reliable, third-party sources (not published by or related to the subject of the article). Wikipedia:Help with sources has more information about these and why they are needed. Unfortunately, the Simple English Wikipedia has many articles which do not have these kinds of sources, or in fact any sources ... philippine slow loris 1.2 Cocotama's Arabic Wikipedia article. 2 comments. 1.3 Interwiki problem. 6 comments. 1.4 HOW TO UPLOAD A PICTURE IN A PAGE. 3 comments. 1.5 Ip adress. 3 comments. 1.6 2019 European Parliament election in France. 3 comments. 1.7 Editing Reflist. 3 comments. 1.8 Restore Amir Ali Shaik Page. 2 comments. 1.9 Is there going to be an end … wcsh weather radarwnba kansas cityminn kota wiring diagram It cannot be the case that publication or exposition per se makes a source unreservably reliable - what you are saying is that first hand evidence is less reliable than second hand reporting and, Bill Huffman, if that is your creed, I suggest you hand back your degree along with Wikipedia's credibility.81.152.237.116 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman fafsa special circumstances The guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources gives general advice on what is and isn't a reliable source; this essay aims to analyse specific examples of sources that might initially appear to be reliable, yet may not be. If in doubt about a source, discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboard.Yes, Wikipedia strongly prefers independent, reliable sources as the "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" policy page goes into great detail about. But in certain cases, using the person themselves as a source is fine. In the section "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves", the policy lists 5 criteria that should … major in financelowes plankfreshman world cup The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information. It is seen as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources. Academics suggest reviewing reliable sources when assessing the quality of articles. [20] [21] See moreIn fact, Wikipedia systematically compensates for the lack of credentials by heavy emphasis on reliable sources. It is a paradox: Wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular websites in the world according to TopSites, and by most measures it is the most widely read knowledge repository on Earth, but still it is often treated as not worth academic ...