User:Aporter90/sandbox

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/

This is a reliable source and I do feel that this is netural.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/17/cbo-trumps-obamacare-repeal-will-spike-premiums-50-one-year/

This article is not netural. The source is not reliable even though it contains an article link in the body of the text that is reliable.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1392270180866032/?type=3&theater

This photo is not netural or reliable.

Feb 15 questions

 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now? If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago it would have been written by highly educated and wealthy white men. The content would be very limited. More than likely there would not be any content on black people or homosexuals or anything that would put "white people" in bad light. I can imgaine that 100 years from now that the content and contributors will be way different than what it is now. Hopefully more underprivilged countries will be able to produce contributors.

Wikipedia accuracy
http://libguides.canisius.edu/wikipedia/accuracy

http://www.livescience.com/7946-wikipedia-accurate.html

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html