User talk:Aidelprin/Is Wikipedia Reliable

Some notes

Citations need cleaning up--they need to be given the proper URLs, and full bibliographical information--I can't tell where the Clark article was published.
Since its creation? Give a date--and indicate when and where and how those debates came to be. Who said what, when?
The creator is Jimmy Wales--where did he say this?
"There was a study"--be more precise.
"it is easy for false information to be added to an article"--sure, but false information also gets uncovered and reverted. BTW that's not necessarily the same as vandalism--but vandalism also gets reverted. Not always, not always immediately, but it happens. Please give some specifics about the process, examples maybe of how it works, what the mechanism is. (Look, I just did it.)
So "Wikipedia can be easily manipulated" is too quick and easy. It can be manipulated, but real good manipulations are rare and complicated. Again, we need specifics.
"Wikipedia is mostly accurate"--is it? Cite, and explain.
"...should be used..." used by whom? Does context not matter? You mentioned "students" earlier (college students? high school students? American students?)--what group of users are you talking about? Again, be specific. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Aumgirl2024

I think you have a good start on the separation of ideas for your paper, but the information sounds a little repetitive. The sources you have could be fixed because I wasn't able to access them besides the last one. The Jstor one is an an academic peer-reviewed article, so I'm sure it has some good information that can help you add credibility to your argument. The other source is from gale, so I'm sure there is some good reliable information there also. Aumgirl2024 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]