Welcome to Anagrammer Crossword Genius! Keep reading below to see if reliably is an answer to any crossword puzzle or word game (Scrabble, Words With Friends etc). Scroll down to see all the info we have compiled on reliably.
reliably
Searching in Crosswords ...
The answer RELIABLY has 3 possible clue(s) in existing crosswords.
Searching in Word Games ...
The word RELIABLY is VALID in some board games. Check RELIABLY in word games in Scrabble, Words With Friends, see scores, anagrams etc.
Searching in Dictionaries ...
Definitions of reliably in various dictionaries:
adv - in a faithful manner
adv - in a manner that can be relied on
Word Research / Anagrams and more ...
Keep reading for additional results and analysis below.
| Possible Crossword Clues |
|---|
| In a way you can count on |
| In a trustworthy way |
| Last Seen in these Crosswords & Puzzles |
|---|
| Jun 10 2019 USA Today |
| Jun 26 2009 L.A. Times Daily |
| Sep 14 2008 L.A. Times Sunday |
| Possible Dictionary Clues |
|---|
| In a reliable manner. |
| Full bDefinitionb of bRELIABLEb. 1. : suitable or fit to be relied on : dependable. 2. : giving the same result on successive trials. |
| in a faithful manner |
| In a consistently good or accurate way. |
| Reliably might refer to |
|---|
|
The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted publicity.A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study, and Nature replied with a formal response and point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections. Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. * Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012), while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.* Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".False information has sometimes lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2005, an editor sparked controversy by creating an article about John Seigenthaler that included false and defamatory statements. The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months. A biographical article on French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed. Journalists from a spectrum of publications have similarly been embarrassed by repeating mistaken or fake information. |