Question

the movement of the progress bar may be uneven because questions can be worth more or less (including zero) depending on your answer.
read this excerpt from a passage and the references entry for the source listed below the excerpt.
according to wikipedia, humans are affected by plastic pollution, too. in fact, being exposed to chemicals in plastics disrupts the thyroid hormone axis and other hormones.
plastic pollution. (2017, nov. 12) in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=plastic_pollution&oldid=822757202
is this source credible or not credible, and why or why not?
this source is not credible because only primary sources should be trusted for evidence in a research paper.
this source is credible because it comes from a reputable online source.
this source is credible because it was written recently and is not outdated.
this source is not credible because anyone can post or edit information on wikipedia, whether or not they have expertise in the subject.

Explanation:

To determine the credibility of the Wikipedia source:

• Option 1 is wrong as secondary sources (like Wikipedia, when properly researched) can be credible.
• Option 2 is wrong because Wikipedia is not considered a fully reputable source for academic research due to its editable nature.
• Option 3 is wrong because recency alone doesn’t make a source credible; Wikipedia’s editable nature is a key issue.
• Option 4 is correct: Wikipedia allows anyone (with or without expertise) to edit, so information may be inaccurate or unvetted, making it not credible for academic evidence.

Answer:

D. This source is not credible because anyone can post or edit information on Wikipedia, whether or not they have expertise in the subject.