W5 readings

Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources

 

This show to me how to identify reliable sources of wikipedia.

 

This say 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.

 

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I experienced received message that writing which I editing is deleted.

When I edited wikipedia first , I didn't know rule editing of wikipedia.

So, I wrote unsouced or poorly sourced materals.

Now, After a few experiences, I overcome this part.

 

Contents of this reading are Overview, Some types of sources, Questionable and self-published sources, Reliability in specific contexts, See also, Notes, External links.

 

At first context "Overview" explain that articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Overview consists of Definition of a source, Definition of published, Context matters.

In definition of a source, The word "source" has three related meanings.

That is the piece of work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher of the work.

and In definition of published, this explain that like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited.

It teaches how to use media sources.

Also, In context matters, this say The reliability of a source depends on context.

So, context is important thing.

 

At second context "Some types of sources" consists of Scholarship, News organizations, E-commerce sources and Biased or opinionated sources.

Various wikipedia articles depends on scholarly materal. and the sources

should be appropriate and objective.

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

Materials such as screening articles by the science, books, papers or study

or the material is published in a reputable peer-reviewed sources or well-regarded academic press are considered to be reliable.

This is objective information. So it is good tip to me.

 

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.

So, news sources considered to be unreliable.

I first know this part. I thought news sources are always right.

because news pass the lately information.

but, because news add opinion content, This may not be true.

and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

 

 

 

At third context "Questionable and self-published sources" consist of Questionable sources, Self-published sources (online and paper), Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.

questionable sources are generally incorrect controversial claim about living or dying organization, as well as more wrong definition and including a claim for personal.

anyone use information in blog for aditing. a few blogger is expert about own's blog contents. So, sources in this blog can be right souce.

these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

when I adit article, I am not looking information that I want to find in blog.

I thought blog is unconditionally personal opinion. so, this is not objective information.

But, out of blog, a few blog have professional writing. I learned this part.

 

At last, "reiability in specific contexts" consist of biographies of living persons, Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Medical claims, Quotations, Academic consensus, Usage by other sources, Statements of opinion, Breaking news.

 

biographies of living persons, editors have to take especially care when writing biographical material about living persons.

Unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed.

 

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

 

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately.

While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

secondary source should be use rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I have a question this part. I want to know accurately about Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I want to know its exact mean.

and why secondary sources more important than primary.

Also,

 

In Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, “Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy.”

 

Everyone can look wikipedia. so, information of wikipedia is difficult.

then, they must use more systematic mechanism. but this sentence say Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy.

I wonder meaning of this sentence.

 

In medical claims, this say it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

 

the accuracy of quoted material is very important. so actual source of the text have to make clear.

 

In Breaking news, reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time.

 

As I read this "Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources", I felt important exact source once more. also I learned sources are very various.