"Internet Sources" Or "books"?

In my opinion, work that is published in books, journals, and periodicals is more likely to be reliable than work that is published on the Internet. For example Wikipedia, anyone can post information that can be wrong and it may take time before that entry is checked. But then again there might be information newer than that of which is on books.

Which one do you find more reliable?

Well, Internet sources may be inconsistent and constantly changing.

And books may be outdated for some informations, then again, the internet get its info from books.

Frankly, I just prefer anything that's convenient enough, I don't reply on one specific source, but a more "general" idea from various sources.

The most reliable material is what is published as "peer-reviewed." Which includes things such as scholarly textbooks, e-journals (i.e. JSTOR) or university-controlled websites (i.e. Harvard or Columbia). As long as the material cites its sources and has been peer-reviewed, it is most likely the best material you can ever get your hands on.

E-books! Reliable information without having to leave your computer. Woo hoo!Bruin4ev3r1520

This. Most of the time I'm too lazy to get up and go to my uni library (which is only about a 10 minute or so walk from my apartment), so I just use the ebrary. You get the best of both worlds na na na na na (Hanna Montanna Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111).

Well, from what I have come across is, works published on paper cost money. If that paper is widely circulated, like a book or professional journal, it has gone through numerous editorial processes. A publishing company will not spend many thousands of dollars on a project unless it is relatively sure that the information is genuine and well documented.

E-books! Reliable information without having to leave your computer. Woo hoo!Bruin4ev3r1520

its 2009, no one reads books anymore

libraries dont exist either