Ad
related to: wikipedia reliability of sources in research proposal
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.
A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence. Reliable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books written by researchers for students and researchers, which can be found in academic databases and search engines like JSTOR and Google Scholar.
Research papers, particularly the one research paper students write in their eleventh grade, have always been an integral part of high school education [4].They stress the need to verify information and teach students how to evaluate sources critically, and as a result, teachers have developed various criteria to help students identify credible sources, an especially important skill in the ...
Unless the source exercises editorial control, e-prints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published. The above questions can be used to consider the reliability of self-published scientific material. See the policy on self-published sources at WP:SPS. Many of them are also primary sources, which should be treated with ...
These are general guidelines, but the topic of reliable sources is a complicated one, and is impossible to fully cover here. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Verifiability and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is also a list of commonly used sources with information on their reliability.
The intention of the proposal isn't to enforce any sort of orthodoxy, but simply to ensure that a source has genuine stature in a relevant community and reflects a significant view, and isn't being included simply because a Wikipedia editor likes what he or she has to say.
Examples include changing Wikipedia:Reliable sources from a guideline to an official policy, or merging it with Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:No original research. Reasons for previous rejection: Assessing the reliability of sources requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules. Whether a source is ...