Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Sources that are reliable for some material are not reliable for other material. For instance, otherwise unreliable self-published sources are usually acceptable to support uncontroversial information about the source's author. You should always try to use the best possible source, particularly when writing about living people.
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to distinguished 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. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered ...
Rule 10. Ask for help. Wikipedia can be a confusing place for the inexperienced editor. Learning Wiki markup —the syntax that instructs the software how to render the page—may appear daunting at first, though the recent implementation of a new editing toolbar has made this easier, and usability development is ongoing.
A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".
An important tool for evaluating a Wikipedia article is to look at its quality rating. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved, and all at different rates. Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete. Volunteers will review articles and leave a rating on the Talk page.
Short URL. w.wiki/FVY. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information.
Yes, but the guidelines for medical information follow the same broad principles as the rest of Wikipedia. Examples of this include the requirement for reliable sources and the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. These apply to both medical and non-medical information. However, there are differences in the details of the ...
This page in a nutshell: Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard ...