Search results
Not a credible source
- Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source you should cite in your research papers. Wikipedia allows all kinds of different users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
paperpile.com › g › wikipedia-credible-source
People also ask
Is Wikipedia a reliable source to cite?
Why should you cite sources for Wikipedia content?
Is Wikipedia a reliable source?
How should a Wikipedia article be based on a reliable source?
Jun 10, 2022 · There is disagreement about whether Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source, but most academics agree that you shouldn’t cite it in your writing, for two main reasons: As an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source , which means it doesn’t provide original insights or analysis.
Shortcut. WP:WHYCITE. Further information: Wikipedia:When to cite. By citing sources for Wikipedia content you enable users to verify that the cited information is supported by reliable sources – improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it .
Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.
Mar 20, 2023 · Wikipedia requires that information included in an article was published by a reliable source. While this is often an important element to confirm something is true or correct, it can be...
Research studies have shown that Wikipedia is roughly as reliable as other sources commonly accepted as “accurate.” Arguably, the one to demonstrate this first was science journalist Jim Giles, who wrote a 2005 Nature article, “ Internet encyclopaedias go head to head .”
