Is wikipedia a reliable source march 25, 2007 posted by elaine in internet trackback wikipedia has become one of top websites visited even though it was created just six years ago. Wikipedia itself isn't a great source however, the citation list at the end of an entry makes for some great sources, if you can verify them click to expand. Wikipedia is a good source of information to begin with students can research with wikipedia to gain an understanding and then branch off into further topics and queries wikipedia does not answer all questions. Q: “do librarians consider wikipedia reliable enough for research” what an interesting question since wikipedia’s inception in january, 2001 (see cnn’s 2005 q & a with wikipedia founder jimmy wales), this online encyclopedia has stimulated on-going discussions about its reliability.
Deletionists on wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” and decided the editor if it is a reliable source last year, an incident, showed the degree to which editors at the very top of wikipedia were willing to rely on false information as long as it suited their purpose. Get an answer for 'why is wikipedia an unreliable sourcewhy is wikipedia an unreliable source' and find homework help for other reference questions at enotes. 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.
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 professors, 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. That said, wikipedia entries are generally in the forefront of preliminary web research on almost any topic and teaching students to look critically at the reliability and credibility of any information source is fundamental to the educational process. The creators of wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers here are some points to consider: look for a slant some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the leaning tower of pisa if . 10 reasons why wikipedia doesn’t suck wikipedia is a good source of information i use it a lot specially when i have a homework and it very accessible, too. C1: wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedia britannica before this argument is actually valid, i must prove britannica is a valid source although it is well known this former (they are stopping the print of real books :() encyclopedia is highly accurate, people can now still use the website.
Why is wikipedia not a reliable source wikipedia is a good source for getting information but, it is not always that it can be relied upon each of the. Wikipedia co-founder jimmy wales told the times, once rohde was free, that “we were really helped by the fact that it (postings on rohde) hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source”. The reliability of wikipedia because wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in . Review opinions on the online debate is wikipedia a reliable source.
” an article about the reliability of wikipedia also contains a number of quotes from librarians, professors, and researchers saying that wikipedia is not a reliable source of accurate information, largely due to the fact that anyone can edit it and the editing procedures are suspect (and, in some cases, carried out by bots the bots who edit . I hasten to add that primary sources are not forbidden by wikipedia policy but some policies do firmly declare that one should not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The reliability of wikipedia varies a lot, depending on the quality and amount of attention an article gets this is not always obvious to the casual reader, a fact that led to the dictum known as kozierok's 1st law: the apparent accuracy of a wik.
Although wikipedia is often acurate, it is not considered reliable in college, wikipedia is definently not to be used as a reliable source i am guessing it would be the same for other places. I have seen several discussions where one poster has referenced something found on wikipedia only to be countered with something like, “wikipedia is not a reliable source because”. As wikipedia stages a blackout and people claim they will be helpless without it, factcheck looks at how heavily people rely on wikipedia and how reliable a source it is. The fact that wikipedia is user edited discounts the website as a consistently reliable source, even if 90% of the time the information is accurate that not to say that the idea isn't genius if you have enough people contributing and editing for accuracy chances are you'll end up with good information.
But it is an excellent resource for further reading on a topic and finding more reliable source materials like scientific journals, reputable news sources, magazine articles, research databases, government or corporate documents and original source documents. On the whole, the web encyclopedia is fairly reliable, but life's little mysteries own small investigation produced mixed results how accurate is wikipedia numerous studies have rated wikipedia . Is wikipedia a reliable source in this paper i will be discussing the debate between pro wikipedia’s dwight reed, and rachel r wright, and con wikipedia’s nicole irwin, michelle douglas, and ivy leigh.