Scholarly versus popular writing among accounting articles through various different resources. Researching the popular Wikipedia. com, an internet website and the Walden library to do a comparison of articles for credibility. Wikipedia. com is not a scholarly resource, on the basis that “Scholarly writing is usually confined to journals or textbooks, which are more difficult to find in the market place and are usually read by academics. ”
In an article by ProQuest (2001): “a publication is considered scholarly if it is authored by academics for a target audience that is mainly academic”, which would then seem to exclude Wikipedia.com from being a scholarly resource. In conclusion, I think it is safe to conclude that with the above mentioned points Wikipedia. com is not a scholarly resource. Wikipedis. com is also not a credible resource for the following reasons. One being that the site can be changed by anyone and that persons credentials can be unknown, irrelevant or nonexistent. The sources or references listed for which the information is based on can be invalid, lack relevance or reliability. A second reason would be what was written may not necessarily had been for academic or professional audiences.
Because it is unclear how many other theories were exhausted from consideration, and ideas expressed could be based entirely on biased or opinion. Lastly I would say uncertainty of the accuracy of information provided. In example, dates can be out dated, erroneous, or not based on the facts. All the before mentioned are contributing factors to why I believe Wikipedia. com is not a credible resource. It is permissible to use a non-scholarly resources depending on the quality of the resource used and topic you’re researching.
Should I ever be presented with the inability to find a peer reviewed article, I would retreat to the next best thing a highly respected trade publication. Like if I was writing about insurance I would use and accepted trade publication in the insurance industry. Although it might not be scholarly, or as quality as a scholarly article may be, they can sometimes be credible. A credible resource through the internet for the use in the field of management: http://mdpi. com/journal/jrfm. On this site you will find this journal on risk and financial management, which are both under the general umbrella of management.
The site not only includes varying topics in management with peer reviewed articles based on in depth research but it also is based on theoretical concepts for academics with practical applications in mind. When determining if the resource I am using biased in its information or viewpoints I would have to ask the following questions. Can the writer benefit from expressing a particular viewpoint? Can the writer benefit by suppressing specific information? Is the information supported by other credible resources? Does the resource support a prejudice or a particular stereo type? Any of these could suggest a resource is biased.