Why is Wikipedia considered to be a poor resource?
because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isnt a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to. the website. Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining why. it is a bad idea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use)
Why is Wikipedia not a credible source?
Wikipedia is not reliable source because it allows anyone to edit anything at any time. Because of that, some dictator countries in the world restricts to use Wikipedia at all since they don’t like sayings about them. As an example, Turkey did not allow citizens to use Wiki for long years until 2020.
Why do people think Wikipedia is unreliable?
Wikipedia has a reputation of unreliability because it is written by volunteer contributors who are not subject to proof of qualifications. In the beginning of the lifetime of Wiki (as we fondly call it), it was quite true that one found unreliable information as often as reliable.
Why you should never use Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to distinguished professorship, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea.
See more
Who said you should have been skeptical about all of your sources anyway?
But Arcus and Andersen say you should have been skeptical about all of your sources anyway.
How many contributors does Wikipedia have?
Wikipedia has more than 41 million registered contributors, all of which are anonymous volunteers.
Why does Wikipedia have fewer women?
Wikipedia also says it covers fewer women-related issues and biographies because of a gender gap — 90 per cent of its contributors are male. The encyclopedia also admits, “there are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years.
How many times does Wikipedia use Canadians?
According to the encyclopedia, Canadians accessed Wikipedia 387 million times per month in 2018. Some 88 per cent of Canada’s 37 million people can connect to the site.
Does Wikipedia reinforce prejudice?
In an email to Global News, University of Guelph Professor Mark Lipton said: “Wikipedia may still reinforce older systems of prejudice and systemic racism. But, like Encyclopedia Britannica, it is the first stop for most search inquiries.”
Is Arcus changing nature of the site bad?
But Arcus says the changing nature of the site isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, depending on the topic, it could mean the information is more up-to-date — like the evolution of COVID-19 health advice.
Who said "Don't call it a comeback"?
As LL Cool J once said: “ don’t call it a comeback.”
What is the requirement for Wikipedia articles?
Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Wikipedia's requirement for writing articles is " verifiability, not truth .". We rely on what is written in external sources to write this encyclopedia, yet not all sources are equal.
What is the New World Encyclopedia?
New World Encyclopedia ( search for uses) — an online encyclopedia that, in part, selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on the values of the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. It "aims to organize and present human knowledge in ways consistent with our natural purposes."
What is a churnalism?
Churnalism is the practice of lightly repackaging press releases and republishing them. These sources are WP:SPS and not independent :
What is a Who's Who scam?
A Who's Who scam is a fraudulent Who's Who biographical directory. While there are many legitimate Who's Who directories, the scams involve the selling of "memberships" in fraudulent directories that are created online or through instant publishing services.
Is Forbes magazine a paid contributor?
Forbes.com - although a branch of the Forbes magazine, its website also contains articles by paid "contributors"—similar to a content farm ( see below). However, in contrast to sites like Examiner.com, its authors are professionally vetted and, in most cases, may have credentials that allow the specific author to qualify under the self-published source criteria (established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons).
Is Voice of America reliable?
Similarly, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States.
Is RT propaganda?
They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-fund ed sources like Sputnik News have also been described as propaganda outlets for the government. However, such sources may be reliable for determining the official positions of their sponsoring governments.
Why are Wikipedia sources deprecated?
A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories ), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopaedia.
What is source reliability?
Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
What should be cited in Wikipedia?
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.
What is a questionable source?
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
What does "source" mean in Wikipedia?
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability.
What should articles be based on?
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
Why are older sources inaccurate?
Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine .
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger all the way back in January 2001. The creators of the platform initially intended Wikipedia be used as a complementary project for an already existing English encyclopedia project known as Nupedia.
Who Writes Wikipedia?
If the site doesn’t really make money, you may wonder how they hire writers. But that’s just it–they don’t. Wikipedia doesn’t hire any writers and instead leaves the site open for volunteers to edit and add different articles for any topic. It’s a crowdsourcing effort to make a comprehensive encyclopedia for anyone to use.
How many articles did Steven Pruitt edit?
Most notably, Steven Pruitt is an incredibly influential Wikipedia contributor responsible for more than 34,000 articles and over 4 million edits. He did this entirely for free as to this community and considered it a hobby.
Can you edit Wikipedia anonymously?
Anyone is free to edit most pages, even without even registering with the site. Keep in mind. However, this doesn’t mean you can completely edit anonymously. The platform will note the IP address of unnamed editors.
Is Wikipedia a website?
The Wikipedia of 2001 is a far cry from what we know today. Now, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia available in over 320 languages. It is the most significant reference work in history and one of the most popular websites of all time.
Can you ban IP address from Wikipedia?
Even if you don’t use a registered account when making problematic edits, admins may ban an IP address from accessing editing features.
Can you use Wikipedia as a citation?
Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive sources on the internet. However, there's a reason your teachers won’t let you use it as a citation. Although Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, specific characteristics should make you question the information you get there.
Is citation needed for general knowledge?
it, and know it’s right. Citation is not needed for things that are general. knowledge. A somewhat obscure point, like the population of. Ghana. If this matters for your assignment, you should verify the. information using a tried and tested source, such as the.
Is Wikipedia a good website?
If your source is a website, it may be great or it may be awful. A Wikipedia article may be as good as (or better than!) an article. assigned to you by your professor, or it may contain inaccurate information and. eccentric judgments. It is unlikely to be as bad as the worst sort of website. You have to judge.
Is Wikipedia a bad idea?
Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining why. it is a bad idea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use) Below is the article: Caution: It is often. a bad idea to cite an encyclopedia in academic research papers. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic.
Is Wikipedia a good source for research?
research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a. creditable source. This can be avoided by following two simple rules: Do your research assignment properly. Remember that any. encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point.
Is an encyclopedia an ending point?
encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point. An encyclopedia is great for getting a general understanding of a. subject before you dive into it. But then you do have to dive into your subject, using books and articles and other appropriate sources. What you find in your.
Is Wikipedia a credible resource?
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? No, because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isnt a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to. the website. Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining why.
News Media
- All mainstream news media can make mistakes. Particularly with breaking news, corrections will need to be made and should be watched out for, and much tabloid journalism will be sensationalist and gossip-driven. Fact checking has reduced generally in the news media over recent years. For more on the trend of churnalism, see Flat Earth News, a book ...
Funeral Homes
- Obituaries published by funeral homes are the same as an advertisement; the only difference from a commercial advertisement in a glossy magazine being that instead of a corporate sponsor, the ad is being published by the family or friends of the deceased. Examples: 1. Thomas Funerals
Scholarly Journals
- Scholarly journals are normally reliable sources, but some journals have a reputation for bias or unreliability. QuackWatch has a list of non-recommended periodicals, however, a short list of journals which should be used with extreme caution include: 1. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons(JPandS), publishes from an unscientific viewpoint 2. Rivista di Biologia, edited by …
Wikipedia Mirrors
- Wikipedia should not cite itself, but circular referencing and fact-laundering are possibilities if we are unaware that sources we use copy from Wikipedia. Lists are at Wikipedia:Republishers and WP:MIRRORS. Some examples that appear in Google Books and are frequently inadvertently used by editors are: 1. Alphascript Publishing and the many other imprints of VDM Publishing (see W…
Online Sources
- h2g2. Wikipedians often make the mistake of thinking that because this used to be hosted by the BBC, it is reliable. It is user generated, and not reliable as a source, though in certain contexts i...
- BBC Music. The artist biographiesare usually taken directly from Wikipedia, which is clearly indicated on the page.
- h2g2. Wikipedians often make the mistake of thinking that because this used to be hosted by the BBC, it is reliable. It is user generated, and not reliable as a source, though in certain contexts i...
- BBC Music. The artist biographiesare usually taken directly from Wikipedia, which is clearly indicated on the page.
- fantasticfiction.co.uk. Used on 1000s of articles about books, but it is a commercial site with no clear editorial oversight. See the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion.
- Answers.com
Self-Published Books
- These may appear to be reliable as they are in Google Books and Amazon, but they have no editorial oversight. Some of the biggest self-publishinghouses are: 1. iUniverse (search for uses) 2. Lulu.com (search for uses)
Who's Who Scams
- A Who's Who scam is a fraudulent Who's Who biographical directory. While there are many legitimate Who's Whodirectories, the scams involve the selling of "memberships" in fraudulent directories that are created online or through instant publishing services. Because the purpose of the fraud is only to get money from those included, the contents are unlikely to be reliable.
Fansites
- Fansites are generally not considered reliable. However, exceptions can apply - some fan sites contain scans of small extracts of old newspaper and magazine articles, and these may be the most convenient way to cite facts based off the original published content. Be careful, however, as these scans may actually be a copyright violation, which must not be used to cite facts in an …
Personal Communication
- It is a convention in scholarly works to add notes of "personal communication" or "pers. comm." with an individual or organisation who are considered knowledgeable on a topic, e.g. see Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Chapter 13: Letters and Other Personal Communication. On Wikipedia this is considered to be original research, which is not p…
See Also
Overview
- Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the...
Some Types of Sources
- Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse …
Questionable and Self-Published Sources
- Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and pe… - Self-published sources
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Interne…
Reliability in Specific Contexts
- Biographies of living persons
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living person… - Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be c…
Deprecated Sources
- A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfou…
See Also
- Templates
Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sourceslists many templates, including 1. {{notability}} – adds: 2. {{citation needed}} – adds: [citation needed] 3. {{unreliable source?}} – adds: [unreliable source?]
External Links
- How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
- How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
- Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
- How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
- How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
- Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
- "How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.