Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.
Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning ...
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link . Never use self-published books, zines , websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the ...
- Ben Yagoda [4] Here's from a 2012 piece in the Columbia Journalism Review: "To start checking a nonfiction piece, you begin by consulting the writer about how the piece was put together and using the writer’s sources as well as our own departmental sources. We then essentially take the piece apart and put it back together again.
As a reference: * Sometimes. Generally, the only notable facts that a petition site is a reliable (albeit primary, self-published, and usually non-independent) source for are its existence, the petition wording, the start and end dates, and for the final outcome after the petition is closed. A notable petition will usually be reported on by an ...
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than ...
References from questionable, historical and "raw" sources are examples of auxiliary sources. References from the subject, or those close to the subject, are also examples of auxiliary sources. [5] A third-party source from one article may be treated as an auxiliary source in another, because the focus has changed. [6]