Is wikipedia reliable смотреть последние обновления за сегодня на .
We've all been told that Wikipedia isn't a good source for research, but how can it have such high quality information and yet still be susceptible to user vandalism? Naturally, the answer involves robots. Whoopsy by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (🤍 Artist: 🤍
It's the go-to website for information on just about anything. But is the info on Wikipedia worth it's weight in megabytes? Trace has the answer and tells us about a new plan to up the accuracy of some of its most popular pages. Read More: UCSF First U.S. Medical School to Offer Credit For Wikipedia Articles 🤍 "UC San Francisco soon will be the first U.S. medical school at which medical students can earn academic credit for editing medical content on Wikipedia." Medical Students Can Now Earn Credit for Editing Wikipedia 🤍 "Starting this winter, medical students at the University of California San Francisco will be able to obtain academic credit from an unlikely source: Wikipedia." Using Wikipedia 🤍 "As a tool for scholarly research, Wikipedia can be either a grade-killer or a valuable friend, depending on who you ask and what you hope to accomplish using it. What is fairly certain is that your professor won't let you cite it in a scholarly research paper." Citing Wikipedia 🤍 Most university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations. Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citeable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative." Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head 🤍 "Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds." Britannica attacks... and we respond. 🤍 Watch More: Are We All Internet Addicts? 🤍 Scientists Vs Internet Trolls 🤍 7 NEW Wonders Of the World: 🤍 DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily. Watch More DNews on TestTube 🤍 Subscribe now! 🤍 DNews on Twitter 🤍 Anthony Carboni on Twitter 🤍 Laci Green on Twitter 🤍 Trace Dominguez on Twitter 🤍 DNews on Facebook 🤍 DNews on Google+ 🤍 Discovery News 🤍
Wikipedia is making us all dumb and lazy. SUBSCRIBE: 🤍 FOLLOW ME: 🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! 🤍 🤖Join my Discord! 🤍 🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! 🤍 🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: 🤍 🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website 🤍 Some music by: Craig Henderson- 🤍 ComradeF- 🤍 HASHTAGS: #wikipedia #rant #videoessay
I love Wikipedia! I even donated to it. But I won't donate again, now that I've learned how BIASED Wikipedia has become. ———— To make sure you see the new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: 🤍 ———— No right-leaning outlets, Fox News Politics, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, etc… is considered “reliable” by Wikipedia. None. But even some of the most extreme leftist outlets get a "reliable" badge like “Jacobin," a self-described SOCIALIST outlet. Vox, Buzzfeed News, and Slate are also deemed “reliable” by Wikipedia. Editors may base stories on their reporting. Why did Wikipedia become so biased? Veteran Wikipedian Jonathan Weiss tells me that the site, like academia, has been captured by leftists. Some Wikipedia administrators even brag on their profiles, "this user is a socialist." Another put up images idolizing communist murderers Che Guevara and Vladimir Lenin. These administrators make final decisions about what counts as “reliable," and what goes on Wikipedia. That’s why for years, Wiki's "communism" page made NO mention of the millions killed by that ideology. US border facilities are listed under "concentration camps,” on the same page as Wikipedia’s holocaust facilities. Can we fix this? Wikipedia is supposed to be a site that "anyone can edit," so I made an edit. You can find out what happened in the video above.
Free Civic Online Reasoning lessons, assessments and videos are available at 🤍 You might have heard that you can’t trust anything on Wikipedia. If that’s the case, then why do professional fact checkers often use it? In this video, we break down the basics of how to use Wikipedia wisely. Based on research with professional fact checkers, the Civic Online Reasoning curriculum from the Stanford History Education Group provides resources to help students become better consumers of digital information.
In this video we will examine Wikipedia. Can it really be trusted? Can you use it as a basis for your personal study? We will read a few passages in English, Italian and Japanese and I will translate them all for you and we will compare the same pages to see if we reach the same conclusions. At the beginning what you see is my personal nerd room, a small room in my home which works as a time machine to my past where I keep all the things which belong to my teenage years. Follow me on my social networks: 🤍 🤍 🤍 🤍 🤍 Music: intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
An apalling example of of how nitpickers "improve" science articles. Follow also my backup channel at 🤍
Wikipedia is good resource... or is it? Vaush answers this age-old question. Disclaimer: This channel is run by a fan and is not affiliated with Vaush source: 🤍 #vaush #clip ✨✨
This question is asked so many times by my students I thought I'd share with you an analogy I often use, hope it helps!
How reliable is Wikipedia for History?
It's the #6 most used website in the world and has over 4 million articles (at the time of this video), so should you trust it? Well... that's a bit of a complicated answer. Follow SYPW on Facebook: 🤍 And on Twitter: 🤍
Wikipedia Day is an occasion to celebrate Wikipedia's birthday. On 15 January 2001, two American entrepreneurs-Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched an online encyclopedia.It was called Wikipedia. Despite much criticism early on about inaccuracies, it has gone on to be hugely successful. Know so many interesting fact about wikipedia. Wikipedia’s Main Page has always been its most viewed, followed by Special: Search and Special: Random. People says Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. तेरा तुझको अर्पण के लिए यहां क्लिक करें - 🤍 Install The Lallantop Android App: 🤍 Follow us on: 🤍 Like The Lallantop on Facebook: 🤍 Follow The Lallantop on Twitter: 🤍 Follow Futkar on YouTube for Short videos: 🤍 Follow Latak on Instagram: 🤍 For advertisements e-mail us at: Ads🤍thelallantop.com Produced By: The Lallantop Edited By: Varun
Wikipedia has a page on just about everything — but can it be used as a reliable source? Teen Fact-Checker Pride explains the different ways you can make sure a Wikipedia article is legit, along with tips on how you can make sure you're using the website responsibly. ATTENTION TEACHERS: This fact-check is featured in a free, one-hour lesson plan. The lesson is available through PBS LearningMedia, and includes lesson summary and a handout, among other resources. Go to: 🤍 - Learn more about MediaWise: 🤍 Follow MediaWise on Instagram: 🤍 Follow MediaWise on Facebook: 🤍 Follow MediaWise on Twitter: 🤍 Follow MediaWise on TikTok: 🤍
See below for a number of resources and tools. If you enjoyed the video on wikipedia being a reliable source, please take a moment and give us a thumbs up on the video. Also, subscribe to our channel to get more videos from us you can also hit the bell to be notified when new videos are released. MY TOP RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE A FULL-TIME $$ ONLINE 🤍 FREE EBOOK - AFFILIATE MARKETING IN 7 SIMPLE STEPS 🤍 FREE EBOOK - 19 BOX DESTRUCTION IDEAS FOR BUSINESS & LIFE 🤍 TOOLS AND RESOURCES I PERSONALLY RECOMMEND 🤍 MAKE CASH FOR CLICKING A BUTTON VIA ONLINE PURCHASES (ebates) 🤍 TEXT MESSAGE MARKETING COMPANY WE USE 🤍 START YOUR OWN WEBSITE WITH BLUEHOST 🤍 ONLY WORDPRESS THEME WE LOVE (DIVI) 🤍 EMAIL MARKETING ONLY 🤍 EMAIL MARKETING, LANDING PAGES, AND MARKETING AUTOMATION 🤍 TOP TOOL FOR MARKETING FUNNELS: 🤍 CREATE BEAUTIFUL LANDING PAGES: 🤍 YOUTUBE TOOL TO INCREASE YOUR EXPOSURE: 🤍 DISCOUNT TO MY FACEBOOK MARKETING COURSE ON UDEMY 🤍 DISCOUNT TO MY 10 BEST ONLINE MARKETING STRATEGIES COURSE ON UDEMY (USE CODE 'BOXDESTROYER' FOR DISCOUNT) 🤍 GET PAID BY YOUR FANS FOR BEING CREATIVE 🤍 FIVERR - GET 20% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER 🤍 GET A FREE STOCK WITH ROBINHOOD 🤍 TRADE CASH SEAMLESSLY WITH FRIENDS 🤍 GET A BONUS FOR USING CAPITAL ONE 🤍 $55 TOWARDS YOUR FIRST AIRBNB STAY 🤍 CONNECT WITH ME ONLINE 🤍 🤍 GET A DESTROY THE BOX T-SHIRT 🤍 Disclaimer: some of the links above are either affiliate links or send you to resources with possible affiliate links. This means that if you use these links that I'll make a small commission for referring you to the product/service (you still pay the same price, or possibly even get a better deal). #destroythebox #brooksconkle #destroytheboxwithbrooks
Is wikipedia a reliable source? Of all things to get triggered over, this caused some people to post they were unsubscribing to the channel. Yeah, taking Qanon "drops" are a credible source, but professional news agencies with teams of reporters, fact checkers and editors, no, that's all fake and scripted.
Welcome to ‘therefore solve it now’ In this tutorial, you will learn about How reliable is Wikipedia as a source of information ? So, watch the video till the end and enjoy it. Don’t forget to subscribe and comment below in the box. Thanks for watching - We are here for sharing our knowledge, thoughts, researches, ideology, and own creations for you. I hope you understand and enjoy every single effort. Subscribe to, therefore, solve it now channel and click on the bell icon so that all videos of solve it now are easily available to you. Thank you. Disclaimer: The content in this video is strictly for educational and informational purposes only. Any video may have a slight mistake, viewers should always do their own research before making a decision. This video does not contain anything that is harmful or something that doesn’t want to be on YouTube. © this video follows the laws of YouTube Photo & Video Credits: 🤍wikipedia.org 🤍
Kirkwood Smart showcases collective knowledge at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In the "Is Wikipedia reliable?" episode, college students, staff, and faculty rate how reliable they consider Wikipedia to be and share how they use it in the context of their lives and research assignments. Would you cite Wikipedia as a resource? Why or why not? How do you check your research resources? Post a comment or video response and share your smarts. For more resources and study tips, visit the Kirkwood Library Blog: 🤍 Series created by Nicole Forsythe, Kate Hess, Matt Murphy, and Clarity Guerra Kirkwood Media Creative Commons Attribution
This entire library of free information known as Wikipedia is often thought of as not a credible source for any type of research. Well today, I show how and why Wikipedia should be used as a credible and trustworthy source. -Do you like videos like these? Like the video, comment what you thought of it, and subscribe here: 🤍 -Join my discord, The Cool Kids! 🤍 -Join the subreddit r/Fighterchef: 🤍 -Background music: “Perlude” (Track 3 in “Jackpot”) by TheFatRat -Outro Song: Track: Valence - Infinite [NCS Release] Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds Watch: 🤍 Download/Stream: 🤍
No. -Music used- Divider by Chris Zabriskie 🤍 Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International— CC BY 4.0 🤍 Music promoted by Audio Library 🤍 Hip Hop Rap Instrumental (Crying Over You) by Chris Morrow 4 🤍 Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0 🤍 Music promoted by Audio Library 🤍 Feral Chase by Kevin MacLeod Download link: 🤍 Available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
How to find information on who contributed to a Wikipedia page? Is it true that Wikipedia pages have no editors to oversee the content? This is one of the tips Troy Hicks, a Professor of English and Education at Central Michigan University and an award-winning former middle school teacher, shared with us in a webinar recently. You can find more of his tips and digital diligence lessons in his book "Mindful Teaching with Technology" and on his website 🤍
How reliable and accurate is Wikipedia? Here I explain how some Wikipedia articles are reliable and some are not. I also explain how to approximate the quality of an article based on its characteristics.
Want to know how to get the best out of Wikipedia? The Teacher-Helper breaks down what makes Wikipedia ineffective as an academic research tool, and explains the two beneficial uses of Wikipedia. Ashley Marshall is an innovative classroom teacher with over 10 years of instructional experience. He has taught English, History, Geography and ESL from grades 7-12, to both young and adult students. He is also a regular digital lesson contributor to the Learning Bird Education Network. His lively and engaging teaching style makes his lessons memorable, and his classroom an exciting environment for all students. The Teacher-Helper channel offers support to teachers, parents and educators on a variety of education-related topics. Subscribe to this space for a first-look at more innovative video lessons. Leave a comment with suggestions of other topics for the Teacher-Helper to cover. Like him on Facebook at 🤍 Music usage rights secured through Audio Jungle. All pictures are royalty-free images images from Pixabay.com, unless otherwise credited.
It's a question that is asked in almost every classroom: Is Wikipedia a reliable source? This short documentary examines the pros and cons of Wikipedia through the opinions of both teachers and students of Edmeston Central School. It also analyzes the idea that Wikipedia is a sign of our times. Directed by: Allen Wengert
#WebDeveloper #WebDevelopment #WebsiteDesign #WebDesign #Web #Website #Design #SEO #SearchEngineOptimization #SmallBusiness #Business #DigitalMarketing #Shorts . . Shoot to Thrill Media is dedicated to building and growing any business's online presence through web development and strategic marketing services. . To put it simply, we’re a team of web developers with a passion for business. But not just any business. YOUR business. We’ve assembled a team of designers, developers, and business management experts in one place to offer you solutions to all your online needs in one place. At Shoot To Thrill Media, we’re all about the experience. We design simple, compelling, and functional websites that make it easy for users to quickly find exactly what they’re looking for when they arrive at your site and then convert them into paying customers. It’s about creating an online experience that transforms users into followers, customers into ambassadors. We do this by listening to you, understanding your target audience, and putting our extensive online knowledge to work on a plan that will improve your business goals and change the way you think about the potential of the internet. Oh, and if you’re wondering, we’re mobile-first. It’s not just the way of the future. It’s the way of right now. Visit us online 👉 🤍 Follow us on Instagram 👉 🤍 Like us on Facebook 👉 🤍 Follow us on TikTok 👉 🤍
I've been told as a student that Wikipedia is unreliable, but I always thought it was. So uhm... which is it? Watch me find out! Sorry for the stuttering images guys. I didn't realize that the Galaxy S7 front camera had issues with stabilizing at 60 fps at 1080p. I guess I'd better luck next time? Anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed the video! The ending is a joke, so don't be scared haha. My links: 🤍 My channel isn't big, so I probably won't have a lot of followers or people tweeting me, but when and if there are enough questions asked, I will do a Q & A. My instagram: 🤍 My soundcloud: 🤍 Music: Those Nights (Vlog Music) by Dj Quads 🤍 Music provided by Audio Library 🤍 "Sneaky Snitch" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 🤍 THE HAPPY SONG by Nicolai Heidlas Music 🤍 Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0 🤍 Music provided by Audio Library 🤍 5:00 AM by Peter Rudenko 🤍 Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0 🤍 Music provided by Audio Library 🤍
🤍 Official video: 🤍 Some people complain or they say that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy because it's a platform on which you can go in and change information. That's true to a degree. The reality is that if you change information on Wikipedia and you don't have any kind of history or you're new to the game, understand that majority of these pages have gatekeepers. These are people who are dedicated to the page and the content that's on the page so if you make any changes they'll be alerted of it and revert back the changes and flag you if you didn't follow any one of the guidelines. The real issue with Wikipedia is that it's a reference index. You can post information there so long as you're referring back to content that's been published elsewhere, and that content has some sort of reputability. Today we live in an era of iterative journalism. What that means is that you can publish content, post stuff, report of rumors and speculation and things may or may not be true (most likely they're not true), but you'll say stuff and have crazy headlines all because it's going to drive traffic. From an ethical standpoint, yes it's wrong. But, from a legal standpoint, you're just commenting on rumors and speculating. When they're told what they're sharing is incorrect and they're given the right information, they'll simply put an update at the end of the article. But, they wont change the headline nor the lead and original content, all of which is still misleading or incorrect. That information is still referenced for the Wikipedia pages. When you have folks like BuzzFeed and UpWorthy, and other yellow journalism folks like Gawker, and even the way that Facebook is setup today (maybe it wont be that way in the future, but it is right now), it's all about infotainment. That content that's being shared, it's being shared like that, and they don't think about the consequences that come as a result of it. We need to really got back to our spiritual tradition of verifying and investigating whether what's being shared with us is actually true. The thing with Wikipedia is that as long as the content is referenced, they can share it. But, the question that comes into play, is what's being referenced, is it legit? Is it true? I feel as though the Muslim community is guilty of this as well. They'll share content and share headlines that speculate for the purposes of eyeballs and come to conclusions through rumors which is not healthy. It's definitely not good for our community as a whole when seeking to work toward a better future. I highly recommend all of you to read "Trust me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator" by Ryan Holiday. The author is the director of marketing for American Apparel and also a fantastic writer who's strong in his ability to do research. He was someone who found himself using the very tactics used to manipulate the media. Among the ways that they would do so is that they'd publish a fabricated news story by getting one of the yellow journalists to write it through the sharing of an "anonymous tip." Once published, they'd leverage that to get real news coverage. You end up having news coverage being created through fake news. Suddenly you have all this information being propagated throughout. It's all based off of falsehood and lies. It crosses the line of what's ethical and right. The reality is that most of us are unaware of news media, where it came from, where it is now, and where it's going. Because of this ignorance a lot of us fall into many of its traps, sharing the vary false information. Some might even engage in the very tactics which are essentially decisive to families, people, and communities as a whole. I highly recommend you check out that book, "Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator" by Ryan Holiday. Don't look to Wikipedia as an actual source of information. It's easy to access, yes. But, look at what's being referred to. And, then based on that make a judgement call as to whether or not it's a reputable source.
Check out the full episode on our channel!!! We are three teachers from London, UK talking all things teaching and beyond! REAL TALK FROM REAL TEACHERS!!! 👇CHECK OUT OUR SOCIALS BELOW👇 ✅ 🤍 ✅YOUTUBE: teacherz from da hood ✅TIKTOK: 🤍teacherzfromdahood ✅INSTAGRAM: 🤍teacherzfromdahood REAL TALK FROM REAL TEACHERS!!!
These are all real.
For a long time, certain people have questioned wikipedia's reliability as a source. In the current election and news cycles, their reliability as a fact checking organization comes under scrutiny. We have no idea who they choose to vet information. We don't know what paradigms or metrics they use. We know that some articles cannot even be modified by the person or organization on which they report. Many links are old or broken. In some cases, the articles are and have been intentionally and maliciously altered. Here, I present my misgivings about wikipedia, my experiences making modifications and the questions I think must be answered before wikipedia can claim to be an objective source of information. Historical comparisons are made to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) including the major contributor Dr. Major William Minor, a Union army officer incarcerated for murder in the UK at the time. What makes his contributions legitimate and how does he compare to contributors to Wikipedia? For more information on that, you can watch the movie or read the book about him. They both have the same title "The Professor and the Mad Man". Available here: 🤍 I reference this article in the video 🤍
This video is about Wikipedia
Is wikipedia reliable credible source? A discussion by hosts at TruNews Network.
Being a user-generated source of information, is Wikipedia a credible source of knowledge? Join me in the video to find out. Subscribe to Bold Learning for more videos and updates. Drop your comments below, if you have suggestion and ideas for new topics. Peace!