Difference between revisions of "Libre Pathology:Verifiability"
(+NPOV) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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. | 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]]''. | Sources should be reliable. How to create references is described in ''[[Libre Pathology:References]]''. | ||
Controversial areas of pathology should be considered from a [[LP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. | |||
==Open access sources== | ==Open access sources== | ||
Revision as of 07:01, 12 May 2015
- 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.