Wikipedia:Credibility

Wikipedia's reputation improved in its life cycle. In Wikipedia, anyone can edit their own content and its reliability may be compromised. Outstanding professors can post content that is easily covered by "trolls" or individuals without suspicion, regardless of whether or not there is a malicious agenda. Wikipedia is solving this problem by continually reviewing new editors inside the company

The encyclopedia editor also checks the correctness of the Wikipedia reliability entry and summarizes the results of international third party evaluations in various fields. Consensus: The encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. Interdisciplinary research professor at Duke University As Cathy Davidson points out, we can not ignore the impact of digital technology (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2007) to fix Wikipedia mistakes I can. Time after posting

References in books may not make sense, even though they are considered to be highly regarded sources of information. Many legitimate authors will refer to them as they see or believe. If requested, they can properly say that this is a secondary reference and is done according to the best available information at that time, it is not malice to say. Unless accompanied by ancillary documents, the encyclopedia does not cite these comments and references, and the encyclopedia needs support source for at least one other verifiable document. Wikipedia

There are many problems that need to be overcome, including Wikipedia's question. People edited with agenda

Many sources are raising the issue of reliability of Wikipedia. The Washington Post article on 8th September 2004 includes the following items.

Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., acknowledges that some of Wikipedia's entries reflect the full wisdom of many contributors to the fullest. He also said, "The problem of trying to do this might only reflect the wisdom of the last contributor, or lack of wisdom at other times."

Wales (Jimmy Wales) acknowledges that the quality of Wikipedia may not reach UK level. He also said that this 236 year encyclopedia is "the best attention". Wikipedia is proposing to implement editorial control in the near future and Wales believes it will be comparable to the UK.

"This quality is very important and we believe we can achieve this quality within a year," he (Welsh) said. Within a few weeks Wales will propose a review process that marks certain articles essentially as "stable" so that they can be included in the printed version or CD-ROM version. Wikipedia is currently functioning and you can edit everything indefinitely. You can continue editing, but a new layer is added to identify the particular version of the item as the editing criteria.

After more than 10 years, Britannica stopped printing. Wikipedia has grown larger and developed a more complex process and structure. As a research subject, it attracts the attention of the academic circle.

"Do not use Wikipedia as an information source" is a sentence often heard in academia. why? Professor believes that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. What is reliability? Why is it important? Reputation is the power to stimulate faith. In academic settings this is very important in academic papers, as the sentences should be supported by solid evidence. This reliability can only be obtained if you use the best, accurate, up to date and reliable sources as evidence. Since anonymous articles are not considered reliable, please try to find the author name to ensure authority. If you find a name, please check its credentials. This helps to judge whether the person can be regarded as authority in the research field. This power can be achieved by educational qualification, employment, or both. After that, you should investigate the institution to which the author belongs.

Today, Wikipedia is one of the most controversial sites for critically reviewing reliability and reliability. This is a complete example of the diversity of Internet resources. While Wikipedia alone, some entries are being submitted by experts, others are not experts written by. Staff and other users are struggling to edit specific entries, but it may be too late to edit them for a long time since entries were posted online (Clemmit, 2008). This is the main difference between unreliable Internet resources and reliable traditional resources. Trustworthy people have undergone long and tedious editorial, political and revision processes and have not passed untrusted Internet resources. Therefore, it is necessary to judge on a case-by-case basis rather than an evaluation of the whole website.