উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the [[WP:SOURCE|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]] that WP:RS requires.<ref name=DM>An example is the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|this RfC]].</ref> The ''Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information'' might have a reputation for "[[predatory open access publishing|predatory]]" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.<ref name=Beall1>{{cite journal |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |date=25 February 2015 |title='Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers |journal=[[The Charleston Advisor]] |url=http://eprints.rclis.org/25046/1/Rahman%20and%20Engels_%202015_Predatory%20open%20access%20journals.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref><ref name=Beall2>{{cite web |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |title=Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ |accessdate=23 July 2013}}</ref>

 

 

Anyone can create a [[personal web page]] or [[self-publishing|publish their own book]] and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, [[Twitter|tweets]], and posts on [[Internet forum]]s are all examples of self-published media.