You may not know, but the Dalai Lama is regarded as a highly qualified Tibetan scholar by Tibetans - he got his Geshe Lharampa higher degree with honours aged only The best websites are those that are run by newspapers or other media agencies that are known to be trustworthy, or those which have a reputation for providing good information.
Help with sources has more information about these and why they are needed. These often have a title of "editorial", "op-ed" or "opinion". Google Books and Google Scholar often have many useful books and papers.
As we demonstrate below, Nature's research grossly exaggerated Britannica's inaccuracies, so we cite this figure only to point out the slanted way in which the numbers were presented.
Newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraphbut be careful to avoid articles which express the writer's feelings and opinions, not facts. The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, a customary practice for journal article reviews.
We've examined many pages on Wikipedia that treat controversial topics, and have discovered that most have, in fact, been vandalized at some point in their history. This is not as helpful, because most users do not check the list of Wikipedia as a reliable source pages for work to do.
And the ones who are like that are perhaps the ones most likely to end up as admins Wikipedia as a reliable source the power to impose sanctions, while the more academic ones are more interested in editing the articles, or in improving wikipedia in other ways e.
I got sanctioned at WP: But with something like this, all that goes out the window. The study concluded that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries",  although Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured".
It found that "the collaborative and participatory design of Wikipedia does generate high quality information on pharmacology that is suitable for undergraduate medical education".
But take everything he says with a grain of salt. The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions. And finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on Wikipedia: An informal assessment by the popular IT magazine PC Pro for its article "Wikipedia Uncovered"  tested Wikipedia by introducing 10 errors that "varied between bleeding obvious and deftly subtle" into articles the researchers later corrected the articles they had edited.
Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy see junk food news. Sources linked to the subject[ change source ] Be careful with sources which are written by someone who represents or is the subject.
If you can find sources for the information in the article, please do add them. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. Also, they don't wait for you to turn up before voting on the sanctions against you.
Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. It was an earlier version of my: But many of the articles on maths are excellent sometimes over technical for a newbie, but accurate. Yes, many topic areas of Wikipedia still have lots of great content. Some experienced users are designated as administrators, with special powers of binding and loosing: A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts.
Books[ change source ] Part of the problem is the fact that many reliable, academic sources do not write about subjects in the simple way that is required for this Wikipedia.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. He can be a lot of fun—over the years he's seen a lot, and he can tell a great story.
In general, if a person or organization writes about itself, this writing is not a good source. For example, the Simple English Wikipedia has an article about the Flat Earth Societywhich claims that the Earth is flat, but the Flat Earth Society's website is not used as a source in the article about the Earthbecause it is not considered to be a reliable source.
The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality.
When a Wikipedia user rewrites the information in these sources in their own words, the meaning may be different from what is true. Encyclopedia of Buddhism - Explains the basic concepts of Buddhism in a manner that is of interest to both the general public and Buddhist practitioners, and respectfully and without bias presents the distinctions between the major traditions within Buddhism - set up by Dorje with me as co-admin.Oct 30, · 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 folsom-orangevalecounseling.com: Resolved. Numerous studies have rated Wikipedia's accuracy.
On the whole, the web encyclopedia is fairly reliable, but Life's Little Mysteries own small investigation produced mixed results. The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.
Oct 27, · Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.
Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source of the information for number of reasons, the most important of which are anonymity and failure to introduce a system which would guarantee reliability.Download