jump to navigation

Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? March 25, 2007

Posted by Elaine in Internet.

Wikipedia has become one of top websites visited even though it was created just six years ago. This online encyclopedia is educational and has viewpoints from various sources, but it may also contain inaccurate information. Their unique “edit” button allows any user to edit or add information to the page on any topic.

Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, did not expect this website to contain such erroneous data. He feels that people use Wikipedia, even with its inaccuracies, because there aren’t better similar sources online.

If there’s going to be a free encyclopedia, I’d like there to be a better free encyclopedia. It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing in this way, and yet the project itself has little chance of radically improving.

His discontent is motivating him to create a new online encyclopedia called Citizendium. It will be nonprofit and devoid of ads. It will also enable users to edit and add information. However, contributors will be expected to provide identification. Then, the web page will be given to experts to check for accuracy.

Do you use Wikipedia? Do you think the advantages (large amount of information from various viewpoints) outweigh the disadvantages (inaccurate information)? Would you consider Wikipedia to be a legitimate source for research? Would the new program, Citizendium be successful if created?

I believe that if we need information, we should have accurate information. I don’t trust people to edit/add their own knowledge on these “informative” websites unless they are licensed or expertise in the field with a degree, etc. I personally don’t use Wikipedia for my academic papers.



1. Brian Mulligan - March 26, 2007

I would never site Wikipedia in a paper, but for intial research, it’s a great starting point if you’re trying to find out information about a certain topic. I like how anybody can post anything; almost like an open forum of ideas, similar to a blog.

As for Citizendium, I think its a great idea as long as it takes off as a credible resource that is taken seriously and can be used in papers and other academic research. I don’t know how they will generate any money if they don’t use ads. They must have to recieve donations similar to Wikipedia to keep it up.

Peter Peterson - October 1, 2009

I trhink this is not true at all because its just such a great site

paul smith - October 1, 2009

yes i agree i really like this site this wat i use all the time

brain mulligan - October 1, 2009

you guys are all gay this site sucks really bad i got in trouble for using it

Peter Peterson - October 1, 2009

i think that you all are crazy because, I can see that this isn’t a real reliable source. Because of this i never use it. I HATE it. NO ONE SHOULD USE IT!!

paul smith - October 1, 2009

its the best site i have ever used

cgull - October 1, 2009

I dont think this is true

Peter Peterson - October 1, 2009


c - October 1, 2009

jaythen get back to work

mara - February 4, 2013

i agree

2. Lady - March 26, 2007

I agree with Brian that I would never use Wikipedia as a source in an academic paper. It is very unsettling to me that anyone can edit the information and leaves room for biased opinions of information that should be factual and objective. I do use it as an initial search for general knowledge of a particular subject. I may also use it when I need to think about different viewpoints or opinions of a particular topic.

What I don’t understand about Larry Sanger’s effort is why he feels like he needs to create a totally new free online encyclopedia (Citizendium). Won’t it take just as much effort (or more) to create a new one, instead of just focusing on improving the problems with Wikipedia? If it is possible to make improvements to Wikipedia, I think that would be ideal because Wikipedia already has an established brand name and large pool of users.

boobbb - December 16, 2011


3. Evorgleb - March 26, 2007

We’ve been talking about Citizendium over at Highbrid Nation. Personally I use Wikipedia a lot and I don’t see anything knocking it off its top spot. The features that make Citizendium better may just be the features that keep it from having the same sucess as Wikpedia. There can only be one. Who will it be?

4. Stacey Swift - March 27, 2007

Before this post I didn’t know exactly how Wikipedia worked. Its a scary thought that I could affect the content on Wikipedia. As far as Citizendium, couldn’t they just hire experts to go through the information on Wikipedia? It is difficult to get people to change thier ways. It is already very successful so I think Citizendium would have a difficult time competing against it. I also think they should use ads for money. How do they expect to keep it running?

5. Abby - March 27, 2007

I wouldn’t cite Wikipedia in a paper, but Wikipedia does mention, on occasion, where they received their information – so I would look, and cite that resource.

I hadn’t seen citizendium before, but a quick visit to the site, and I’m not interested. Its too complicated. The simple, straight-forward format of wikipedia is much more appealing.

6. silviamocanu07 - March 27, 2007

I frequently use Wikipedia if I need quick information on something; however, I agree with the other comments in that I do not consider it reliable enough to site in any work that I turn in.

I like fact that it is user-friendly and it does provide useful information, but it is most certainly not a substitute for reputable academic sources. Given that hte accuracy of what people submit is not guaranteed, I believe that Wikipedia is great as a starting point, but nothing more than that.

Also, I think that the founder’s idea to create Citizendium is excellent, particularly since this new project incorporates two aspects that are very important to users: it is free and it is accurate.

7. Angie - April 25, 2008

I use it as a reference for myself only. I will not quote it for other people. This is because:
a) I already have some basic knowledge for the subjects I search for so I will be able to spot the illogical points in the material and edit them.
b) the content of the material can be changed anytime by anybody so inappropriate content may be displayed at any period of time. Yet nobody will be responsible for the misleading content.

I will quote a web page only if I am convinced that someone can be responsible for the page even it is being changed from time to time. For example on the matter of web security, I will not quote Wikipedia but “Security For Online Payment” from tipskey.com because I feel that the article is OK. If you feel that it is not OK, at least you know that guy in tipskey.com is accountable for it and you can do something.

8. Wikipedia: a teaching resource « Notions and Potions - June 24, 2008

[…] investigation. If you are interested in Wikipedia, check this blog out, right here on WordPress: The Way Things Work. And then go to Larry Sanger’s (founder of Wikipedia) new online encyclopedia, Citizendium. […]

9. KC - February 21, 2009

I agree with many of the comments above that state that Wikipedia can be a good base for ideas and brain-storming. But that is where it ends as a legitimate academic source.
As a professor, I remind my students that they should never cite a source that is not a) ending with .edu or .gov, and depending on the situation, .org. The date should be recently updated and have an actual author, or organization that takes resposibility for what is said on that site, b) .com stands for commercial, and may have some bias, or the interests of their sponsors in mind, c) real research still requires going to a library or academic journal databases (like JSTOR) and, d) PEER REVIEW does not mean any “joe” can edit something or review it. People who have experience, or a high degree of background research in the particular area of query are considered “peers” with the author. This scrutiny creates an invaluable filter for not only the accuracy of the information, but its relevance (some people cite work done in the 50’s as their sources on Wikipedia, when theory, technology, and practice have revolutionized thinking in a particular area).
So citing one of the Wikipedia citations is really quite fraudulent (to yourself) because you have no way of knowing if the person 1)read the source in its entirety to understand it fully, 2) if they understand whether experts in the field consider the source to be be dated or incorrect in its premise, or 3) If it was really referenced, or just used to lend legitimacy to the Wikipedia author’s argument.
I had to lend my 2 cents here, as I see the use and reliance on this site for academic purposes to be a growing phenomenon, and it cheats students who are paying a lot of money to get at the truth. Understanding sources and their legitimacy is just part of that learning experience they pay for, yet seem so intent on circumventing.

Kevin - November 18, 2009

whats your name? how do i know you are a proffesor? and a proffesor of what? how do i know your a reliable source? how? how! HOW!!?!

Kevin - November 18, 2009


10. Crimi - April 20, 2009

The great thing about wikipedia is that its a single place you can go to to get the information you need, and fast. After every sentence there is a citation where down at the bottom you can find the exact book, article, or “reliable” website it came from. Some of the hardest part of research is just finding good sources to use. Now whenever someone comes across a good source, they can contribute that source to Wikipedia for everyone to use.
Encyclopedia Brittanica for instance has the power to decide what they publish and what not to publish. Their sources are reliable im sure, but once its out that’s it, there’s no going back until the next edition comes out and you have to pay more, and you will never ever get crap from teachers for citing that source. I can safely say that i use Wikipedia everyday, and never have i had a problem with phony information. Great website.

11. Adam Ma - May 27, 2009

Wikipedia isn’t 100% accuarate but it’s still the best online encyclopedia and I mostly use it for school projects. There are some things in it that are little off. But the most part is that it has the some grammar errors. When I copyed and pasted it on my computer, it nofied that there were many grammar mistakes. So what? Who cares about grammar.

Kevin - November 18, 2009

uh.. there aren’t that many grammatical mistakes on Wikipedia as far as i know. but i think its a great site and its never let me down. ill get on Wikipedia and just absorb tons of information. its a great way to learn and get smart! I’d say about 99.9% of the information on that site is accurate. maybe some of it is a little off but i bet only to an expert loll. anyways, great site, best on the web right now far as encyclopedias go

12. Adam Ma - May 27, 2009

By the way, Wikipedia is the best information site. Not including the seach engines eg. Yahoo!, Google, Ask

Jorge - August 19, 2009

You are the only smart person here. Thank You

13. Maria Snyder - May 27, 2009

I agree that wikipedia is the best info site even through that it’s only about 99.9% correct. I’m an author I should know. I use it to publish books and develop ideas.

14. John Smith - May 27, 2009

Wiki’s the best site! period.

Diamond - September 23, 2009

Nice response K. I am also a Christian and believe we should feel comfortable in saying it. However, the reason I happen to be on this site because of a school project I had to complete based on reliable sources. In reading your response, I could not help to give my opinion. Many individuals are becoming aware this is not a reliable source based on the site being a free for all to add information at will. If I wanted a buffet, I would have chosen Golden Corral. Nonetheless, when you want quality, one has to go beyond the norm. Also as Christians Citizens, we have a right to voice our opinions by speaking the truth in love. Although this can sometimes be hard however, with Christ all things are possible.

Take care.

15. K - August 17, 2009

I’m skeptical of Wikipedia only because I’m aware that at least 85% of the secular academic world isn’t too keen on Jesus Christ and as moral relativists, they bleed together the black and white and therefore the untrained eye can drown in a shade of grey. I guess what I’m saying is that Wikipedia, which is edited by every Tom, Dick and Harrietta, reflects our society made up of morally relative (and thus contradicting) worldviews. I’m very picky about my sources. I want to know who is editing the information. My library is sacred to me specifically because it contains books by people I’ve researched and come to trust (and no, not all Christians).

On a positive note, Wikipedia can be a good tool to find new words and/or phrases to research. Then there are things I’m just curious about. For example, Chris McCandless from the film “Into the Wild.” I really don’t get obsessed with accuracy in cases like this so Wikipedia works well for me then. I think it also does a good job at showing what subjects and categories relate to what and therefore gives people a quick overview of the entire context of a subject. This works wonders for any philosophical subject or philosopher. The ability to clink on links is nice.

16. ch3y3n3* - November 19, 2009

i think that wikiprdia is not a true website and that it is very possible that people can put a bunch of lies

17. Andrews - November 22, 2009

I think that wikipedia is a trustworthy website to use. I look at at two ways A) Its moderated, so there are checks and balances B) We are humans, and you may disagree, but EVERYTHING we do is with a slant on it, one way or another. Scientists disagree too! There papers and studies reflect that. Thats why I like wikipedia, its a culmination of all these viewpoints, and then you can say… “This is what I think about all this.” Plus, wikipedia is great for obscure research for school and learning, I can’t tell you how many sleepless nights I’ve spent in wikipedia loops learning about particle physics, culture, socio-economics, and whatnot. And for that wikipedia is great, but its not the end all be all source for knowledge

18. Omar: from bendale - December 14, 2009

I think wikipedia is correct!!

boobbb - December 16, 2011

i think ur gay

bob - December 16, 2011

I agree

19. Omar: from bendale - December 14, 2009

the AK47s caliber is 7.62x39mm and wikipedia says that as well. the AK47 is better than the M16 and whoever disagree’s with that is an idiot. so screw ya’ll bitches.

The Hunchback of Notre Huh - May 6, 2010

is it necessary to insult?

Niggerkiller1969 - April 25, 2011

AK-47 is worthless at over 200 yards, also, AK-47’s are for niggers

20. Fat man joe - December 14, 2009

I like cheese burgers!!!!

21. Omar: from bendale - December 14, 2009

By the way i really don’t think that KC up a number 9 is really a professor. and the Lady up at number 2 is hot. so are all the other chicks in this conversation.

22. mau - December 20, 2009

Wikipedia is a great website for those topics that are important for the general audience. However, be careful when searching for topics that are of little interest since they are not that much protected from people editing them with inaccuracies.

23. Anti-Wikinazi, Pro-Wiki - December 28, 2009

I find it amusing that people are stupid enough to say that it’s not a reliable source, when current policies on Wikipedia require a reputable and reliable source when you add anything. Information added is constantly being challenged, removed if false, or reworded to clarify. You can’t just “add stuff” in, citing yourself. That’s generally called Original Research, and will result in you being banned if you do it repeatedly.

Agreed with Mau, though. The less “interest” a subject has, the more likely it is to have errors in it that go undetected because they can’t possibly be 100% correct on everything.

Before you bash the site, look at its standards and regulations. And no, the regulations in the Humor section are not the ones you should look at. My only grief is that they require citations for absolutely everything… seriously. They have a citation on the fact that the human hand normally has five fingers… freaking Wikinazis.

24. herosaver200 - January 10, 2010

it is 90% reliable

25. Anon - February 2, 2010

For everyone that says it’s not reliable, please provide source links to Wikipedia pages that are inaccurate. Also, if you provide references to subjective topics that can vary depending on context or personal opinion and preference, please keep that in mind prior to using it as a spine to your argument.

I use Wikipedia a lot and 99.99% of the information I have found is neutral, informative, illustrative and unbiased. Whether factual or not would open my comment up to pigeon-holing.

I am able to have a discussion on Wikipedia prior to a change and make the change myself if applicable. To be perfectly honest, out of all the years I’ve used it, I’ve only found one instance of intentional abuse and I removed it myself. It’s not perfect but hey, the alternative, in my eyes, looks like some guy with a license and a degree on the specific topic who is going to provide all the useful information and he may collaborate with other colleagues. This allows the one individual to bring his bias in, which he will do inevitably because he is human. I think history is written by the winners in most situations, but not all. I think the Wikipedia environment creates better information than that written by the winners because if you know something better than something else, you will insert your comments and if someone else disagrees they will remove your comment and add their own and it will go back and forth until someone is the winner. This eliminates most of the childish and intentional abuse due to investment time but the downside is the constant changing and updating of information as it becomes more readily available and information quickly changes once new information is introduced. This can lead to some confusion because people believe that standard encylopedias are defacto when, infact, they’re pretty far from it. Try comparing a standard encyclopedia to Wikipedia sometime and tell me that Wikipedia isn’t pretty damn good.

I think what’s most fascinating about Wikipedia is its relevance to the current day. Today, our need for information grows at an exponential rate and our consumption addiction, in my opinion, protrudes beyond the outer edges of supply. This is forcing old information to be updated, reexamined, changed where necessary and this goes against what a lot of people are used to – steady, never changing, always right the first time, genre of information.

Thank You

If you take all your information from one source then you’re setting yourself up for failure. You should ALWAYS cross reference and confirm said source.

26. JACOB P BOUDREAUX - March 5, 2010


27. dconrad3 - March 29, 2010

The initial fire-starter of this conversation was a blog was first posted three years ago, March 2007. Since then, many Wikipedia articles have evolved from erroneous or incomplete to exemplar models. Because of its very nature, Wikipedia is not an independently reliable source for research. However,it is valid tool in the pursuit of interest and knowledge and a source in the triangulation of research, a process we should teach students and practice ourselves, especially in our contemporary world of change.

28. Johnny - May 10, 2010

I think its okay due to its semi-protection system so i would use once in a while….

29. Iona - July 7, 2010

I belive it is a wesite that informational. However checkout the authors that help administer adminster the information. I they seem to be very knowledge go and check out their work to see what other other work they have done so you can continue to follow what they do and what they appear to be knowledgable in.

30. Mauricio Villablanca - July 24, 2010

To the naysaysers who claim Wikipedia is a reliable source, here’s a perfect example of how biased Wikiepedia content owners are:

Shortly after the World Cup 2010 game between Brazil against Ivory Coast in which Brazilian player Luis Fabiano scored a goal after touching the ball with his hand twice, I edited Fabiano’s entry to point out the illegitimate goal using the ESPN highlights video as the source in which it can be clearly seen the certainty of my post. Not a minute later the administrator of that Wikipedia page, a Fabiano fan no doubt, accused me of posting “irrelevant data”. I resubmitted my post and again the post was deleted until I was actually blocked from editing.

I won’t even get into the global warming religion and the Obama cult that is the very essence of Wikipedia. It’s so deranged, it’s not even worth discussing it.

What’s sad is that many lazy college and high school students use Wikipedia as a source. Even worse, unethical professors actually accept it.

31. carlene Lewis - September 19, 2010

I agree with Mauricio his point is very strong and speaks for alot of people yes I myself tried Wikipedia and I find it very usful in my studies and work it has everything there for all resources.

32. Tim - October 23, 2010

I recently heard that the conservative right hires people to edit the information to basically re-write history on that site and promote the far right views. This is troubling to me and I will never rely on it again for a credible start to research or general knowledge. I believe the new site beign created will work better as it will require some sort of certification and oversight. I hope it works, because Wiki was a great site to gather knowledge quickly.

33. Big Duh - November 4, 2010

Only a true moron (or cheating student) would cite Wikipedia as a source. I do like it though. The interfeace is quick and easy. I use it as a sort of glorified seach engine. I’ll read an article, and that gives me ideas on how to move forward into real research, using peer-reviewed, vetted, or well-known and trusted sources. Big duh.

34. Big Duh - November 4, 2010

By the way, I certainly wasn’t calling Tim “a moron.” I was referring to mentally lazy people in general, the Chronically Gullible, and of course, cheating students. Oh yeah, and also plaigerists.

moron - November 10, 2010

i dont understand your logic. how does “citing” wikipedia make a student a cheater? also the site contains thousands of volunteers whose jobs are to correct any “unwanted” changes. there is a page that documents all alterations on every page, so they are easy to find.

35. cutie :) - November 15, 2010

i really think its not reliable coz any1 can make an account and write anything even if its not true… just an opinion

36. Kurtis(; - November 19, 2010

you weirdos. you guys are fighting over nothing. everyone has an opinion

37. Kurtis(; - November 19, 2010

yo i just wanna give a shoutout to all my homeboyyyyyyyys!

38. Mica - November 19, 2010

well i think that wikipedia is only about 90% accurate. people shouldn’t use it as source for school but rather a bouncing bourd to help you get started.
P.S. Kurtis,what’s with the “homeboys” thing

Ichimoto - December 13, 2010

He’s just being stupid. :3

I think that Wikipedia is fairly reliable. While there ARE people who are just complete asses and mess up the information to inconvenience people, there are many more who want to fix it.

I think I’ve only seen one inaccurate article, and that’s only because the person who messed it up linked it to me (he thought he was being funny. -.-)

It was fixed within an hour or two, so obviously they can stay on top of it.

Wikipedia is pretty helpful in my opinion- as long as you have an ounce of logic, it’s not too hard to tell whether or not you’re being lied to.

39. LOLA - December 15, 2010


Skylar Bolio - February 8, 2013

You’re fucking stupid…

40. LOLA - December 15, 2010


41. Sam - January 1, 2011

Wikipedia is 99.9% accurate. If it hasn’t been checked out for references it says so in big bold letters on the top, or has disclaimers citing something that is/possibly wrong with the article. And all of you christian people being proud of jesus is fine. Just don’t go advertising it wherever…I don’t need that kind of pollution in my life.

42. Matias - January 12, 2011

Wikipedia seems to be in some cases (politics, history, military history) quite a lot “left wing” and “progressive”. I’ve lately found huge amount so called information about military history just full of stalinist mytologies and fantasies. I assumed that quite a lot of left wing people are using Wikipedia eagerly to sponsor their ideas.

One example: it’s amazing how Rydiger Overmans study, “Deutsche Militärische Verluste”, has been used widely as reliable study though science behind his claims are very poor.

43. ssgt.calhoun - January 13, 2011

it was innocent in its inception and its initial concept of free information however human nature being what it is, it is also irresponisble not to have checks and balances for information that is free to all. because misuse or tampering with important information can really cause harm or mis trust to the people who really need a good truthful answer for a question that they might have. even our own system of government has checks and balances to ensure that no one man can run rampant with misuse of power. im sure mr larry sanger didnt envision this creation of his to be so widely used and also misused.

44. Burkely Hermann - January 15, 2011

You are telling inaccurate information in your story. Not all pages can be edited by an outsider. The pages about Presidents and others can only be edited by a registered user and once registered has edited at least 40 times. However, I do agree with you that Wikipedia can at times be inaccurate.

45. brazil77 - January 16, 2011

Although Wikipedia can be changed by different people there is tons of info on the website that is truthful and helpful to people. i don’t know if i would rely only on wikipedia, actually i don’t suggest anyone should only rely on one website, because there is a slight chance the information could be incorrect. Also the fact that different people have different beliefs on this topic, (as you can see if you read the conversation) is important. i wouldn’t take the risk of siting wikipedia on a more major paper not only because of the possible incorrectness but because the person marking it may have a strong negative opinion on the website. that is my view

46. brazil77 - January 16, 2011

Wikipedia can be fun if the info you need is not important, i have learned some pretty interesting stuff from the website.

47. Wrocek - March 2, 2011


48. B. Sanders - August 24, 2011

Wikipedia is good only for general pop knowledge, but when it comes to academia, only the lazy use Wikipedia.

Any person that has the audacity to use something as inaccurate as Wiki deserves an F especially if someone else can do the same essay topic but use extensive credible sources for their argument.

What makes Wiki so inaccurate is that not only can anyone change the content at their own will, but you don’t know the credibility of the people changing it.

Many of you who whine about it being accurate are people that probably plagiarize and don’t belong in a university. A credible source is someone who has expertise in the field of study, and has extensive research on the topic.

There are too many opinionated articles on Wiki to take it serious. If you are so intent on sourcing an encyclopedia, get a real one that is actually made by experts (such as Britannica).

49. English Pedagogy – September 2nd 2011 | mbravocl - September 2, 2011

[…] a very similar article about wikipedia here and POST your impressions on THAT website. Good luck! Eco World Content From Across The Internet. […]

50. Mariajosé - September 2, 2011

I’m agree with this, only because in my case I’am a student and I always need some material to do my homework’s and I had to search a trust website that gives me the right information.

51. Francisca Cortes - September 2, 2011

Although Wikipedia is one of the most visited pages to search things, is not really safe, because anyone can add articles,opinions or many times are just viewpoints of the person who is uploading, nobody is approving this material, if we are searching real information (that I supposed is important) should visit other pages that are certificated and not so easy to accede, in my case, in many times I choose wikipedia to download information, but ALWAYS with other pages open to corroborate everything. I’m agree to make that new program citizendium! I hope it result.

52. chudai - November 27, 2011

hi!,I love your writing very much! percentage we keep up a correspondence extra about your post on AOL? I need a specialist in this space to solve my problem. May be that’s you! Taking a look ahead to see you.

53. braces cost - December 10, 2011

Woah this weblog is excellent i really like reading your articles. Stay up the great work! You recognize, lots of persons are searching round for this information, you can aid them greatly.

54. camera pictures - December 15, 2011

Excellent post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I am inspired! Very helpful info particularly the ultimate section 🙂 I care for such information much. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thanks and best of luck.

55. boobbb - December 16, 2011

wikipedia is a sucky resourse and no body should use it it has false information and just plain out sucks

56. isaac - January 11, 2012


57. NG - February 13, 2012

I read that Wikipedia monitored by Wikimedia. Is that true?

58. muke - February 18, 2012

Fuck u hoe. Go suck a fat ass choad

59. muke - February 18, 2012

Hey. First of all go suck a fat ass dick you stupid cunt. I invented this site so suck my hairy balls bitch

60. GWB under attack by his own party - Page 4 - TigerFan.com - February 28, 2012

[…] […]

61. Fannexiajaf - May 15, 2012

Keep on searching [ http://google.com Google –

62. here - May 28, 2012

Just to let you know your blog looks a little bit strange in Firefox on my netbook using Linux .

63. victor - August 2, 2012

all the coments here make alot of sence … but check this out … we all agree that wikipedia is not really a reliable source … But i throw this question out … ¿ what is really a reliable source? … thruout the history of mankind , facts and events have been shaped and formed to precisly shape and form peoples viewpoint on every issue you can imagine…
i just read a comment made by a profesor saying that webpages posted by the goverment are reliable … and that i just think is pretty naive …
but any way … good luck to all in the eternal serch por truth …

64. alcohol - September 13, 2012

My family members every time say that I am killing my time here at net, but I know I am
getting knowledge everyday by reading such pleasant articles.

65. Devin - October 1, 2012

Saved as a favorite, I like your site!

66. Credibility « Deedar Khudaidad - November 2, 2012

[…] Elaine, E. (2007, March 25). Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://mgmt339.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/158/ […]

67. best hgh - April 9, 2013

I rattling got into this article. I institute it to be stimulating and loaded with incomparable points of benefit. I same to interpret material that makes me believe. Impart you for authorship this high communication.

68. jasmine green tea - May 10, 2013

What’s up to every one, the contents existing at this web site are genuinely amazing for people experience, well, keep up the good work fellows.

69. cooperation - May 23, 2013

This piece of writing will assist the internet viewers for building up new weblog or even a weblog from start to end.

70. Carlton - May 25, 2013

This selection is ideal p90x video list order for those being and weight loss marketplace is huge and insanely profitable.
I plan to do the Shakeology fast for at least the 3 p90x video list order day cycle, and overwhelmingly report is that
this program is extremely challenging. This will not only help you bodies need
different things. If you better yourself will body repair muscle tissue and heal wounds; support the brain to promote calmness and alertness; and reduce hunger

71. projektowanie.stron-wroclaw - May 29, 2013

Hello! I’ve been reading your blog for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Dallas Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work!

72. Online Casinos - June 5, 2013

5% of the kitty is about the actual optimum that you want to get gambling per side, and so playing at a table that
has a minimum amount that surpasses that will fraction is actually asking for difficulty.
The particular good and the bad tend to be dramatic even though, which means this isn’t really to the faint-hearted.

73. Wire.Kapitall.Com - June 29, 2013

With havin so much content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or
copyright infringement? My site has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help prevent content from being stolen? I’d genuinely appreciate it.

74. slotocash online slots - June 29, 2013

Being a regular gamer, it is possible to make the most of his or her regular campaigns in
addition to brand-new extra packages available
together with just about every deposit that you just create.

Likewise establishing store throughout Raider area is usually ex
– Saints quarterback Aaron Brooks and he can possess some nutritious extensive receivers
within Randy Moss, Jerry Porter as well as Doug Gabriel
and also proficient jogging again Lamont Gordon.

75. http://buymileycyrustickets.Com - February 28, 2014

There would be a fearful storm of sleet last Saturday, which prostrated the telegraph line
between Grandy’s Brook and the Bay of Despah, N miley cyrus Tickets cost (http://buymileycyrustickets.Com) most of the time
a lender really wants to see at the very least
$1000 monthly income, so be certain your paystub reflects
very much or higher as income for your requirements.

76. repossession software - October 17, 2014

repossession software

Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? | The Way Things Work: Organizations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: