Generally I am using wikipedia to read an article and I use the reference links.

That's quite a vague question, what do you mean?

If you're looking for general info, yeah, internet encyclopedias like Wikipedia are nice, but they're not trustworthy when it comes to the hard facts (Especially when KYM and ED are even more trustworthy than Wikipedia). If you're looking for that kind of info, you're going to want to look for "official sources" (Whatever the Hell that means anymore), read books (From "all viewpoints" so you get a full picture), and watch videos (Make sure they, at least, source their material or it might be nothing more than bull).

[img]http://www.dragonflycave.com/wpay/mew.gif[/img]

What kind of research are you talking about? If you're referring to academic research, obviously stuff like jstor, google scholar, etc. are the go-tos (and your school's library, of course). If you're talking about just cross-referencing if something's true or not, plug it into google and read as many news articles from as many sources as you can, and check how they're referencing their own sources too. Wiki is nice for a quick overview of what something is, but if you want anything in-depth, you're probably better off checking out a book from the library or trawling jstor.

Quote from Otakuch

Generally I am using wikipedia to read an article and I use the reference links.

For all the grief that Wikipedia gets, it's actually not a bad place to start. It's approximately 93-97% on par with Encyclopedia Britannica; and, as far as I can tell, the skew is because Britannica has a smaller database and doesn't update as frequently (which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's just a different way of doing things). As a FREE resource, as long as you're sticking to facts with citations and reviewing the cited links, Wikipedia's pretty decent. In fact, the primary sources (per MLA standards) that an earlier poster mentioned, are often linked in the Wikipedia article for most contemporary subjects; these usually are an organization's current homepage, the official website of a famous person, etc.

Otherwise, I personally stick to well-known organizations for their disciplines. When I'm looking up news, I keep to CNN, NYT, and Washington Post or papers local to the event (esp. for international news). Mayo Clinic and Harvard Med for medical information. Museum and .edu institutions for social or historical stuff.

Quote from Suxinn

If you're talking about just cross-referencing if something's true or not, plug it into google and read as many news articles from as many sources as you can, and check how they're referencing their own sources too.

Oh, jumping off of that, another suggestion that could be useful when searching for info is to use the "custom range" option that both Google and Bing provide if you're looking for info posted during certain times ranges.

[img]http://www.dragonflycave.com/wpay/mew.gif[/img]

Thanks for all replies. I mean, I asked it for all topics not just technology or politics, Also I've seen "rumors" about Wikipedia is untrustworthy so I decided to post here.

Quote from Otakuch

I've seen "rumors" about Wikipedia is untrustworthy so I decided to post here.

Most of that flack comes from its early Wild West days and instances in which people tried to use Wikipedia as a source for breaking news, as in news happening in real-time. Personally, I've always thought that was weird because I've never looked at anything ending in '-pedia' and thought, "Yeah, that's a source for current news." 🤣 As far as I understand it, they now have a whole procedure for locking down pages relevant to breaking events to prevent tampering, so that doesn't happen as much anymore.

But, as I said, Wikipedia's more a good point to start out from if you're writing any sort of paper, but following the cited sources is the best way to get real deets and a reasonable biblio.

Thanks!

Quote from Otakuch

Also I've seen "rumors" about Wikipedia is untrustworthy so I decided to post here.

According to the site's co-founder:

Quote from Larry Sanger

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.” The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.

[img]http://www.dragonflycave.com/wpay/mew.gif[/img]

Yes, I am talking about that. That's why I am searching new sources, I decided to read books about the topic that I search.