Difference between revisions of "Libre Pathology:Verifiability"
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:''LP:V and LP:RS redirect here'' | :''LP:V and LP:RS redirect here'' | ||
In [[Libre Pathology]], '''verifiability''' is held as essential. There is less emphasis on "who" and more emphasis on "evidence | In [[Libre Pathology]], '''verifiability''' is held as essential. There is less emphasis on "who" and more emphasis on "what proves it". As proponents of evidence based medicine, we want to see the evidence. | ||
Sources should be reliable. | Sources should be reliable. How to create references is described in ''[[Libre Pathology:References]]''. | ||
==Open access== | Controversial areas of pathology should be considered from a [[LP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. | ||
Open access sources are preferred, as they allow immediate verification of information. | |||
==Open access sources== | |||
Open access sources are preferred, as they allow immediate verification of information. | |||
Closed sources should ''not'' be avoided, as much good pathology information can currently only be found in closed sources. | |||
==Personal experience== | ==Personal experience== | ||
Personal experience is '''not''' considered a reliable source. If you know something from experience, someone has probably written about it. Go find the reference! If it isn't written about, [[Libre Pathology]] is not the place to do so, as it is policy that there should be [[Libre Pathology:No original research|no original research]]. | Personal experience is '''not''' considered a reliable source. If you know something from experience, someone has probably written about it. Go find the reference! | ||
If it isn't written about, [[Libre Pathology]] is not the place to do so, as it is policy that there should be [[Libre Pathology:No original research|no original research]]. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Libre Pathology:Be bold]]. | *[[Libre Pathology:Be bold]]. | ||
*[[Libre Pathology:No original research]]. | *[[Libre Pathology:No original research]]. | ||
*[[Libre Pathology:References]]. | |||
*[[Libre Pathology:Neutral point of view]]. | |||
*[[Libre Pathology:Editing]]. | |||
[[Category:Libre Pathology policy]] | [[Category:Libre Pathology policy]] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:58, 27 April 2016
- LP:V and LP:RS redirect here
In Libre Pathology, verifiability is held as essential. There is less emphasis on "who" and more emphasis on "what proves it". As proponents of evidence based medicine, we want to see the evidence.
Sources should be reliable. How to create references is described in Libre Pathology:References.
Controversial areas of pathology should be considered from a neutral point of view.
Open access sources
Open access sources are preferred, as they allow immediate verification of information.
Closed sources should not be avoided, as much good pathology information can currently only be found in closed sources.
Personal experience
Personal experience is not considered a reliable source. If you know something from experience, someone has probably written about it. Go find the reference!
If it isn't written about, Libre Pathology is not the place to do so, as it is policy that there should be no original research.