Looking for:
Pdf expert notability free
The Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border, sometimes referred to as the Irish border or British–Irish border, runs for km ( mi) from Lough Foyle in the north-west of Ireland to Carlingford Lough in the north-east, separating the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland.. Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European . Modern digital iPad planner is designed to be more flexible to use than a paper one. Just choose the optional planner for iPad note-taking apps such as GoodNotes, Noteshelf, Notability, ZoomNotes, PDF Expert app presented in different versions – best for iOs iPad Pro, Air, and Mini, and another iPad version. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be “worthy of notice” or “note” —that is, “remarkable” or “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded” within Wikipedia as a written account of that person’s life.
Pdf expert notability free
Template messages (maintenance tags, cleanup tags, cleanup messages) may be added to articles needing purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree . Jul 14, · It might prove a veritable tool for note-taking at school and other basic usages. But the following note-taking apps allow users to do more than just annotate PDF iPad. 1. PDFelement – Best Free PDF Annotator. When it comes to the free PDF annotation app for iPad Pro, PDFelement for iOS is arguably the leader of the pack. It offers users a. The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines.. Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer.
Wikipedia:Notability – Wikipedia.The best PDF app for Managing, Reading, and Editing — The Sweet Setup
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model , particularly its English-language edition. It is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer that it can be ” edited by anyone at any time ” and maintains an inclusion threshold of ” verifiability, not truth “.
Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results , with findings varied and inconsistent. Wikipedia’s reliability was frequently criticized in the s but has improved over time; it has been generally praised in the late s and early s. Select assessments of its reliability have examined how quickly vandalism — content perceived by editors to constitute false or misleading information — is removed.
Two years after the project was started, in , an IBM study found that “vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects”. The majority of the encyclopedia is written by male editors, leading to a gender bias in coverage and the make up of the editing community has prompted concerns about racial bias , spin bias , corporate bias, and national bias, among others.
The prevalence of non-neutral or conflict-of-interest editing and the use of Wikipedia for “revenge editing” has attracted publicity for inserting false, biased, or defamatory content into articles, especially biographies of living people. The online encyclopedia does not consider itself to be reliable as a source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings.
Researchers, teachers, journalists, and public officials do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. Academics suggest reviewing reliable sources when assessing the quality of articles. Its coverage of medical and scientific articles such as pathology , [25] toxicology , [26] oncology , [27] pharmaceuticals , [28] and psychiatry [29] were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources in a Nature study.
Wikipedia allows for anonymous editing; contributors are not required to provide any identification or an email address. A study at Dartmouth College of the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia’s most productive contributors of valid content. Wikipedia trusts the same community to self-regulate and become more proficient at quality control.
Wikipedia has harnessed the work of millions of people to produce the world’s largest knowledge-based site along with software to support it, resulting in more than nineteen million articles written, across more than different language versions, in fewer than twelve years.
The first four of these have been the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested within Wikipedia. In contrast with all the previous intrinsic metrics, several “market-oriented” extrinsic measures demonstrate that large audiences trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For instance, “50 percent of [US] physicians report that they’ve consulted Wikipedia and fact-checking includes the process through which Wikipedia editors perform fact-checking of Wikipedia, and also reuse of Wikipedia for fact-checking other publications, and also the cultural discussion of the place of Wikipedia in fact-checking.
Major platforms including YouTube [44] and Facebook [45] use Wikipedia’s content to confirm the accuracy of information in their own media collections. Seeking public trust is a major part of Wikipedia’s publication philosophy. The most common critiques were poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues three mentions , omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles three mentions , and poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa one mention The most common praises were factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies four mentions , and much useful information, including well-selected links, making it possible to “access much information quickly” three mentions.
The non-peer-reviewed study was based on Nature ‘ s selection of 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists. The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, a customary practice for journal article reviews. Based on their reviews, on average the Wikipedia articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles contained 3. Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica.
The study concluded that “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries”, [30] although Wikipedia’s articles were often “poorly structured”. Among Britannica ‘ s criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that some of the extracts were compilations that included articles written for the youth version, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion.
Britannica further stated that “While the heading proclaimed that ‘Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,’ the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. As we demonstrate below, Nature ‘s research grossly exaggerated Britannica ‘s inaccuracies, so we cite this figure only to point out the slanted way in which the numbers were presented. In June , Roy Rosenzweig , a professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of the Wikipedia biographies of 25 Americans to the corresponding biographies found on Encarta and American National Biography Online.
He wrote that Wikipedia is “surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U. However, he stated that Wikipedia often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references. He also complained about Wikipedia’s lack of “persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose”. A web-based survey conducted from December to May by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hills , assessed the “accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles”.
The survey did not attempt a random selection of the participants, and it is not clear how the participants were invited. The German computing magazine c’t performed a comparison of Brockhaus Multimedial , Microsoft Encarta , and the German Wikipedia in October Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields.
In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3. It concluded: “We did not find more errors in the texts of the free encyclopedia than in those of its commercial competitors. Wikipedia’s articles were compared to a consensus list of themes culled from four reference works in philosophy.
No errors were found, though there were significant omissions. PC Pro magazine August asked experts to compare four articles a small sample in their scientific fields between Wikipedia, Britannica and Encarta. In each case Wikipedia was described as “largely sound”, “well handled”, “performs well”, “good for the bare facts” and “broadly accurate”. One article had “a marked deterioration towards the end” while another had “clearer and more elegant” writing, a third was assessed as less well written but better detailed than its competitors, and a fourth was “of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta or Britannica equivalents”.
No serious errors were noted in Wikipedia articles, whereas serious errors were noted in one Encarta and one Britannica article.
The article compared Wikipedia’s content to other popular online encyclopedias, namely Britannica and Encarta. The magazine asked experts to evaluate articles pertaining to their field. A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts. Wikipedia was comparable to the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category. The test was commissioned to a research institute Cologne-based WIND GmbH , whose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion on four criteria accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarity , and judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average 1.
Wikipedia’s coverage was also found to be more complete and up to date; however, Brockhaus was judged to be more clearly written, while several Wikipedia articles were criticized as being too complicated for non-experts, and many as too lengthy. It concluded, “The quality of content is good in all three cases” and advised Wikipedia users “Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source.
But the vast majority of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information. The paper found that Wikipedia’s entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent.
A study assessed the extent to which Wikipedia pages about the history of countries conformed to the site’s policy of verifiability. It found that, in contradiction of this policy, many claims in these articles were not supported by citations, and that many of those that were, sourced to popular media and government websites rather than to academic journal articles.
The study found that while the information in these articles tended to be accurate, the articles examined contained many errors of omission.
A study co-authored by Shane Greenstein examined a decade of Wikipedia articles on United States politics and found that the more contributors there were to a given article, the more neutral it tended to be, in line with a narrow interpretation of Linus’s law. Reavley et al. They asked experts to rate article content with regard to accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability. Wikipedia scored highest on all criteria except readability, and the authors concluded that Wikipedia is as good as or better than Britannica and a standard textbook.
A perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine examined Wikipedia pages about 22 prescription drugs to determine if they had been updated to include the most recent FDA safety warnings.
A study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association examined 19 Wikipedia articles about herbal supplements , and concluded that all of these articles contained information about their “therapeutic uses and adverse effects”, but also concluded that “several lacked information on drug interactions, pregnancy, and contraindications”.
The study’s authors therefore recommended that patients not rely solely on Wikipedia as a source for information about the herbal supplements in question. The authors concluded that “Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education”.
In a interview with The Guardian , self-described information specialist and Internet consultant [76] Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was “not aware of a single librarian who would”.
He then explained that “the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window. In , the library at Trent University in Ontario stated Wikipedia had many articles that are “long and comprehensive”, but that there is “a lot of room for misinformation and bias [and] a lot of variability in both the quality and depth of articles”.
It adds that Wikipedia has advantages and limitations, that it has “excellent coverage of technical topics” and articles are “often added quickly and, as a result, coverage of current events is quite good”, comparing this to traditional sources which are unable to achieve this task.
It concludes that, depending upon the need, one should think critically and assess the appropriateness of one’s sources, “whether you are looking for fact or opinion, how in-depth you want to be as you explore a topic, the importance of reliability and accuracy, and the importance of timely or recent information”, and adds that Wikipedia can be used in any event as a “starting point”. A review of Wikipedia by Library Journal , using a panel of librarians, “the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format”, asked “long standing reviewers” to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia popular culture, current affairs, and science , and concluded: “While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a resource that takes pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs suggest that at least for now Wikipedia may be granted the librarian’s seal of approval”.
A reviewer who “decided to explore controversial historical and current events, hoping to find glaring abuses” said, “I was pleased by Wikipedia’s objective presentation of controversial subjects” but that “as with much information floating around in cyberspace, a healthy degree of skepticism and skill at winnowing fact from opinion are required”. Other reviewers noted that there is “much variation” but “good content abounds”.
Information Today March cites librarian Nancy O’Neill principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System as saying that “there is a good deal of skepticism about Wikipedia in the library community” but that “she also admits cheerfully that Wikipedia makes a good starting place for a search. You get terminology, names, and a feel for the subject. PC Pro August cites the head of the European and American Collection at the British Library , Stephen Bury, as stating “Wikipedia is potentially a good thing—it provides a speedier response to new events, and to new evidence on old items”.
The article concludes: “For [Bury], the problem isn’t so much the reliability of Wikipedia’s content so much as the way in which it’s used. According to Bury, the trick to using Wikipedia is to understand that “just because it’s in an encyclopedia free, web or printed doesn’t mean it’s true. Ask for evidence A article for the Canadian Library Association CLA [82] discussed the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example that in controversial topics, “what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with”.
The author comments that:. In fact Wikipedia has more institutional structure than at first appears. Some experienced users are designated as administrators, with special powers of binding and loosing: they can protect and unprotect, delete and undelete and revert articles, and block and unblock users.
They are expected to use their powers in a neutral way, forming and implementing the consensus of the community. The effect of their intervention shows in the discussion pages of most contentious articles. Wikipedia has survived this long because it is easier to reverse vandalism than it is to commit it Shi et al. This included almost , articles representing approximately 5 percent of the English Wikipedia. They wrote: “Political speech [at least in the United States] has become markedly more polarized in recent years Nevertheless, a large literature documents the largely positive effect that social differences can exert on the collaborative production of information, goods and services.
Research demonstrates that individuals from socially distinct groups embody diverse cognitive resources and perspectives that, when cooperatively combined They found that “articles attracting more attention tend to have more balanced engagement Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.
Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. Researchers and academics contend that while Wikipedia may not be used as a percent accurate source for final papers, it is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically.
– Pdf expert notability free
› apps › best-pdf-manager-editor-ipad. PDF Expert is delightfully easy to use, offers the fastest PDF app reading experience, works with many syncing services, and has the most robust.
