Reply to thread

See what others are reading now! Try Forums > Current Activity

Message: <blockquote data-quote="normality78" data-source="post: 3996624" data-attributes="member: 17">Comments(5) | Add Yours Print E-Mail Share This Skype GlossaryIs Wikipedia Reliable?The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider: •Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.•Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.•Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.•Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example•There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.•Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.•The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------I decided to spend a little time with a few Wikipedia pages today to see what I could discover about the accuracy, usability, and quality of the information available there. After all, the Wikipedia entry for a lot of search terms in Google, Yahoo, and other search engines is usually in the top 5 or so results. A lot of people are using Wikipedia: reading it… doing homework with it… writing research papers… or business presentations… etc. It'd be nice to know if that information is reliable or not.For my little test I chose three Wikipedia pages:•The Iraq War (a current, still-changing event) The majority of the article contains a detailed time line of events from pre-war Iraq to the present. I actually read all 33 pages of that time line, too. Here are a few things I didn't like:•The quality of the writing is not top-notch. In fact, obvious misspellings, missing words, and grammatical errors abound. •Several pieces of the entry stated as fact have no reference link to show where the information came from. Luckily, most of them are flagged as missing a reference. But to the casual reader or student, that could easily be missed. And if it's wrong, there's no where to go to find out where the information came from. •Several parts of the entry are written with an obviously biased perspective.Overall, the entry is questionable. It looks complete and it covers a lot of information. But the validity and the accuracy of some of it is questionable. To the trained, objective eye that makes the validity of the entire entry questionable. If you can ignore the grammar, the post is written well enough that most people could follow along. But is it encyclopedia-level writing? Not at all. Would I use this entry to write a report, a presentation, or as a trusted source? No.</blockquote>

Verification

The Marketplace Latest

Evasive EVS Tuning Carbon Body Kit Honda Civic Type...
- Started by aycy
- Exterior and Body
Mugen MS-C Full Bucket Seat Civic Type R FL5 FK8
- Started by aycy
- Engine and Performance
Boost Logic Boostlogic Oil Cooler Kit R35 GTR GTR35
- Started by aycy
- Engine and Performance
Linney IHI 800WHP Turbo Kit R35 GTR35 GTR
- Started by aycy
- Engine and Performance
Varis R35 GTR GTR35 Front Bumper
- Started by aycy
- Exterior and Body
HKS Spec R Titanium Exhaust with Y pipe R35 GTR GTR35
- Started by aycy
- Engine and Performance
2016 BMW 120i LCI M Sport F20 1.6 Auto
- Started by aycy
- Cars for sale
GR Yaris H&R Front Rear Anti Roll Bar
- Started by aycy
- Chassis and Wheels
BBS RI-A 10J God Spec FK8 FL5 Honda Civic Type R...
- Started by aycy
- Chassis and Wheels
Rays Gram Lights 57CR GR Yaris Subaru Impreza Rim...
- Started by aycy
- Chassis and Wheels

Posts refresh every 5 minutes

Touring tires review 2020 by tyrereviews.co.uk

For those who just want mid performance category tires, this might interest you.

will this fit our airtrek turbo

Hi guys hope you are all well.

This looks exactly like the standard system do you think this will fit our cars...

Help: How to lightup blinkers with foglamp???

Hi everyone, I really need all ur help.

Just wanna do some project on my accord, wanna lightup blinkers with foglamp. Refer pic below, wanna blinker B to lightup when foglamp A is ON and at same time can blink when...