Web pages are created by the public, so you have to be careful when choosing them as sources. It is very user friendly, and easy to navigate, with a huge volume of entries. Marks an article as having unreliable sources and adds it to [[Category:Articles lacking reliable references]].
Wiki websites can be informative, but they can also be untrustworthy.
Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.See also my comment here: http://www.enotes.com/history/discuss/114364For all the reasons already mentioned, Wikipedia is considered by many to be an unrealiable source, especially if it is the major source one consults or the source of last resort.
Often, as #4 points out, there have been cases of mistakes.
The question that often arises when it comes to homework and research is whether it’s okay to use Students often believe that historical novels are trustworthy sources because they indicate that they are “based on facts.” There is a significant difference between a factual work and a work that is based on facts. People often create blogs to give themselves a forum to express their views and opinions. Consider the source. (The last time I checked, this error was still there.) You could use a blog for a quote, but Some people "adopt" pages and regularly review changes for inaccuracies. This means that people can put in false or mistaken information and there are no editors to fact check the statements. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case). So it's easy to see how a wiki source might contain unreliable information.
Therefore, it's not advisable to use a historical novel as a historical resource Often, Wikipedia is actually a good place to look. With its ever-growing popularity and usefulness, Wiki has undergone major upgrades to the quality and incidence of reliable information available and, even now, is more often reliable than not--turning full circle from it inception. Wikipedia is an unreliable source because regular, everyday people are the people who are writing the articles. This is the problem with Wikipedia; it is not a primary source.There are lots of positives about Wikipedia, and I am sure that I am not alone in using it myself to find out about a lot of topics and using it as an initial reference point. 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. Please use this with a |reason= parameter, and only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question. A novel that is based on a single fact can still contain ninety-nine percent fiction. When you read Wikipedia, you are actually reading sources. It was quickly corrected, but in lower profile entries, such as most of them are, it is difficult to check them all for accuracy before they are posted.It's a good idea to be cautious of anything you read on the web, even here. A personal web page is much like a blog when it comes to being an unreliable research source. Whatever you do, don’t use a movie as a research source. This is generally more true on esoteric subjects.Wikipedia can be susceptible to having errors because literally anyone can edit an article on the site. It's sometimes difficult to determine which websites are created by experts and professionals on a given topic. And these sources are accurate most of the time, or rather all of the time for important articles. Wiki is meant to be a SOURCE AGGREGATOR, meaning that it aggregates sources and stores information on its site.
Here are some points to consider: Look for a slant.
Template parameters. Unlike, for example, the Wikipedia is not always an unreliable source. However, at times, it can have false or mistaken information.
This is not to say that there is not still a long way for Wiki to go toward full reliability, but Wiki has made great strides with expert contributions written by experts in their fields. Here are some common sources to avoid; each of these may include opinions and works of fiction disguised as facts. By using ThoughtCo, you accept ourFake Facts About Explorers Help Teach Research Skills It is a usual lilypad which we can use to jump to other sources of information, but I always tell my students that they should always use another source as well.Wikipedia is a very large database, with some useful information within it. Teachers, librarians, and college professors will tell you that students often believe things they’ve seen in movies. When beginning your next assignment that requires sources, consider the The question that often arises when it comes to homework and research is whether it’s okay to use Wikipedia as a source of information.
This is not true of much of the Internet.