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?
Is Wikipedia a reliable source to cite?
Why should you cite sources for Wikipedia content?
How should a Wikipedia article be based on a reliable source?
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.
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.
- A Wikipedia citation usually includes the title of the article, “Wikipedia” and/or “Wikimedia Foundation,” the date the article was last updated,...
- There’s some disagreement about whether Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source . Because it can be edited by anyone, many people argue that...
- Most academics agree that you shouldn’t cite Wikipedia as a source in your academic writing , and universities often have rules against doing so...
- When you want to cite a specific passage in a source without page numbers (e.g. an e-book or website ), all the main citation styles recommend u...
Mar 20, 2023 · The five pillars establish Wikipedia as a free online encyclopedia, with articles that are accurate and cite reliable sources, and editors – called Wikipedians – who avoid bias and treat one...
Most academics agree that you shouldn’t cite Wikipedia as a source in your academic writing, and universities often have rules against doing so. This is partly because of concerns about its reliability, and partly because it’s a tertiary source.
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 .”
