User:Cchesnu/sandbox

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.siue.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8c737cf8-8740-4d72-9cae-8a2b4f9e2f64%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&hid=4212

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.siue.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=c1fe189b-dd46-4124-aa0b-bd857f79c6ad%40sessionmgr4007&vid=5&hid=4212&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=99467731&db=a9h

Wikipedia article –Credibilty

The article does seem to have reliable sources. Under the first heading after the intro, there is a survey mentioned regarding news organizations. There are links throughout each of the paragraphs that take the reader to the bottom of the page where the references are located. It seems like a lot of the sources come from Standford.edu, which is a reliable reference. I do not think that there is bias. It doesn’t seem like there is much conversation going on in the Talk pages for credibility. This article is however a part of WikiProjects such as Business, Marketing & Advertising, Philosophy, and Politics. All of which are rated star- class and of high-importance.

Essay on Wikipedia- The Doctor is in Class

I did not know prior to reading this essay that medical doctors actually use Wikipedia and allow their students to access the sites to update and improve the information. I found it also very interesting that the medicine articles on Wikipedia are seen by 200 million people in a month!

Policy  or guideline – No original research

What surprises me the most about the guideline is that literally no facts or ideas can be published or referred to unless there is an online primary source somewhere out there to back it. In a way, this makes sense to me because Wikipedia wants to make sure that the information they are allowing on the site is reliable but it confuses me because all information has to come from somewhere.