Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet

Article title: Everyday Mathematics
Answer the following questions to see how reliable a Wikipedia article is.

1. Start with the main page. Does it have any cleanup banners that have been placed there to indicate problems with the article? (A complete list is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/
   Cleanup.)

 No clean-up banners.

Any one of the following cleanup banners means the article is an unreliable source:

This article or section has multiple issues.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject.
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.
This article or section needs to be updated.
This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region.
This is missing citations or needs footnotes.
This article does not cite any references or sources.

2. Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:

Is it written in a clear and organized way?	Yes
Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)?	Yes
Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)?	Yes
Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?	It's not very long, but it doesn't seem to have any gaps.

3. Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
   
   Reliable references:Everyday Mathematics, McGraw Hill, A+ Click Everyday Math
   
   Possibly unreliable references:
   
   Definitely unreliable references:
   
    
4. Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?

---

There is no rate on it.  The comments are about 3-5 years old so I believe it's been edited since then.  But, some of the issues is that once it was very much bias toward Everyday Math (Sept. 2007) and then the next comment is from October 2011 which says it is now very bias against Everyday Math. The most recent is April 2012 saying that a sentence was difficult to read.  After reading the comments, I went and reread the article and I'm going to say that it has to have been edited because it doesn't seem extremely bias to me.

---

---

---

5. Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.

• You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
• You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some of its references as sources, but do not use it as a source.
• You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.

How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to support
your answer.

 I believe it is partially reliable.  It isn't extremely bias and gives a basis of the curriculum, but does not give enough to use as a source.  The references can definitely be used as sources though.  There isn't very much information on the Wikipedia page to use it as a source and I just would feel better using the actual Everyday Math website that is cited than to use the Wikipedia article.