How do you know something is a reliable resource?

[Leader Bee]

While Wikipedia is a great place for information the fact that it's editable by anyone means it's not reliable, experts and ameteurs alike can add their comments to an article and it's not always unbiased. While there are links to sources at the bottom of most articles it's usually cited as an unreliable resource.

 

Taking into account the above, how can you varify anything on the internet as a reliable resource? is Physorg.com reliable? how can you tell something has been peer reviewed or that the same information is generally accepted science? what about Howstuffworks.com too? I find that very informative but without a research background I find it difficult to tell.

 

When I post I'd like to be able to source reliable information in my posts but doing so online seems like a fallicious minefield.

[Realitycheck]

While physorg and sciencedaily are edited by highly esteemed, credible professionals, it is just a higher echelon news service. I believe caution needs to be exercised on theoretical positions. Anybody can always drill down with Google.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Realitycheck

[imatfaal]

Agree with Rcheck - too often a sensible, grounded article in a peer-reviewed journal will be written up in sciencedaily in sensationalist terms (often along the lines of the press release which can also be massively over-hyped - which is unforgivable). You can nearly always get the abstract for free - and that will often give a better idea than any popular press article. I would go with wikipedia over the pop-sci journals or normal press

[WorldOfBiochemistry]

The best way is to check if the information is supported by scientific literature. That means that in the text there must be references to the scientific papers/books where the information was retrieved.

[Ophiolite]

The obvious routes to primary resources include:

 

http://scholar.google.co.uk/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

[DrRocket]

While Wikipedia is a great place for information the fact that it's editable by anyone means it's not reliable, experts and ameteurs alike can add their comments to an article and it's not always unbiased. While there are links to sources at the bottom of most articles it's usually cited as an unreliable resource.

 

Taking into account the above, how can you varify anything on the internet as a reliable resource? is Physorg.com reliable? how can you tell something has been peer reviewed or that the same information is generally accepted science? what about Howstuffworks.com too? I find that very informative but without a research background I find it difficult to tell.

 

When I post I'd like to be able to source reliable information in my posts but doing so online seems like a fallicious minefield.

 

Any source, even a peer reviewed journal, can contain mistakes. There is no way to be sure except to acquire sufficient expertise to be able to determine for yourself whether what you read is correct, or even plausible.

 

Some sources are better than others. Wikipedia is full of errors and opinions, but is a good place to start, if you read very skeptically. It is a good source for references for further investigation.

 

Standard, time-tested text books are usually reliable, but you must still read critically and with understanding.

 

Scholarpedia tends to be very reliable, though somewhat limited. Articles are written by invitation, and reviewed before publication. Authors and reviewers tend to be world-class experts.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page