When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

    Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; contributors (known as "editors") are not required to provide any identification or an email address. A 2009 study of Dartmouth College in the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content. [32]

  3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

    Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may ...

  4. Wikipedia and fact-checking - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking

    Wikipedia's volunteer editor community has the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content. [1] Their aim is to curb the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation by the website. Wikipedia is considered one of the major free open source websites, where millions can read, edit and post their views for free.

  5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/...

    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.

  6. Wikipedia:What is a reliable source? - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a...

    Some questionable sources might include legitimate articles to hide their true intentions. Evaluating publications requires extensive research and knowledge. Generally, it’s beneficial to rely on professionals to assess credibility, especially for scientific claims or local newspapers, which vary significantly in quality and reputation.

  7. Wikipedia:Credibility - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Credibility

    Wikipedia's credibility has improved during its lifetime. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit its contents and this can undermine its credibility. An illustrious professor could post content and a "troll" or uninformed individual could easily overwrite it, with or without a malicious agenda. Wikipedia addresses this concern with internal ...

  8. Wikipedia:Verifiability

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

    These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources .

  9. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not...

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. As a user-generated source , it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism , a work in progress , or simply incorrect.