Bad Online Source Author is being objective Article/author is biased. They are taking a personal stand on social/political issues, promoting a product or idea, and not being objective. Should be a clear distinction between facts and opinions.

It is very reliable. It’s reputation has long been that it is probably the “most respected” of all of the general encyclopedias.

Part of the History Channel’s mission is to raise awareness about the vitality of history, promote history education, and encourage the preservation of historic archives and sites. Professional historians have helped the channel achieve its goals.

What sources should be avoided?

• out-of-date materials (published over 10 years ago);
• posts from social networks (i.e. facebook);
• blogs;
• research articles without citations;
• websites ending in .com, . org, . net etc.

These are sources that are not credible or reliable sources for essays.

• Wikipedia. Okay, so here’s the deal.
• YouTube. YouTube is used all the time by teachers.
• Google Books.
• Essay Sharing Websites.
• Famous Quotes from the Web.
• Your Teacher.
• Information Blogs that Pose as Authoritative Websites.

Sources, to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia, must meet all of the following criteria: Publication. The information must be published; that is, it must be fixed, transcribed, or recorded in some medium which is both persistent and which is available to be read or inspected, without restrictions on disclosure.

The following are unreliable sources because they require confirmation with a reliable source: Wikipedia: although this is a good starting point for finding initial ideas about a topic, some of their information and attached resources may not be reliable. Self-published sources. Opinionated articles such as editorials.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.

It is important to use credible sources in an academic research paper because your audience will expect you to have backed up your assertions with credible evidence. Using evidence that does not come from a credible source of information will not convince your reader that your claim is plausible or even correct.

If you notice the following, the source may be biased: Heavily opinionated or one-sided. Relies on unsupported or unsubstantiated claims. Presents highly selected facts that lean to a certain outcome.

But the vast majority of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information.” The paper found that Wikipedia’s entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent.

It is Wikipedia’s Featured Articles that are especially trustworthy in contrast to normal or even good articles, as they have to pass even harder “tests” to become featured, as they are to be “the best of Wikipedia”, “a model for other articles”, and thus, a much more reliable source than average articles.

Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and written 35,000 original articles. It’s earned him not only accolades but almost legendary status on the internet.

Since Wikipedia does not carry any advertisements, it depends almost entirely on donations made by its millions of readers around the globe. Notably, last year, E-commerce giant Amazon made a $1 million donation to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The organisation has a team of around 250 employees and over 250,000 global volunteers, as stated by Pat Pena, Director of Payment and Operations for Wikimedia Foundation, in a blog post. “We’ll get straight to the point: This Tuesday we need to make a donation to protect Wikipedia’s Independence.