Search
Full bibliography 6,454 resources
-
If you’ve ever found yourself juggling messy spreadsheets, random sticky notes, or a half-broken to-do list app, Obsidian’s Bases might…
-
You've got to be kidding.
-
This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes. Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The list is not an independent document; it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary. Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise. Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.
-
We need to stop right now and take a 30K foot level view of Charlie Kirk's assassination. Why did they do it? And why do they want us in the weeds focusing on small details. It's becoming crystal clear that The CIA and three letter agency connections to the Charlie Kirk assassination are growing too obvious to ignore at this point. Use Tyler Robinson as a patsy, use a convenient trans cover story, admit that you have overwhelming digital data during a court hearing yesterd
-
125 million years ago an exceptionally long, baking hot summer began to sweep through the Celestial Mountain in the Tien Shan alpine range spanning modern-day Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China.
-
Wi-Fi 7 is tailored to networking environments that combine high bandwidth with rigorous uptime requirements. Here's how to think it through.
-
The most underrated factor