• I think books are more reliable.

    On the internet anyone can come up and post information and it is not revised or edited. Any of the information can be false on the internet. An example can be this website itself people are posting facts that probably aren't revised. However books are strictly revised 6-8 times by professionals. Therefore books are more reliable.

  • Books are accurate in information

    It is accurate because before publishing it was strictly checked and approved by the publishers. Hence, internet has a lot of information but some of it is not accurate and non sense because anyone can upload information regarding to the topic but it does not really useful and correct. Books are better to use then.

  • Internet is good, but, for research, books are better

    I, for one love the internet. But, think about it. It takes a lot to write and publish a book. You can't just say "here's my book" and it's on the market. But, with the internet, you just write what you want. I do say that this can be a little different if you find a credible resource. But, all in all, I think books are better.

  • Books are way more reliable

    People on the internet just may post up rumours and none of it is true but books have facts in them, reliable facts. As a general rule, books are a more trustworthy source than the Internet –but that doesn’t mean that the Internet can’t be reliable too!

    Why Isn’t The Internet As Reliable As A Book? The main reason that the Internet is less reliable than a book is because anybody can upload something to the internet. Online, you can say something without backing it up, whereas if you make a claim in a reference book, you have to be able to state your source.

    Websites like Wikipedia allow anyone to make a contribution, and so there’s no telling how reliable they are – for all you know, somebody could have completely made the information up!

    How To Tell If A Website Is Reliable Usually, if they cite their sources, there’s a good chance that the information is correct. If there are spelling and grammar errors, or the tone of the page doesn’t sound very professional, then you should think carefully before trusting it.

    Company websites – or websites for things such as museums, art galleries and university research departments – pretty much have to be accurate, because they depend on people taking them seriously. Trust your judgement: If the website doesn’t seem as reliable as a book, it probably isn’t!

  • Books Top the Net

    Some books are trash, but for the most part getting a book to publication requires a high level of talent, commitment, and research on the part of the writer. Anyone can publish anything they want to on the Internet. There is no requirement of truth or reliabilty, and the Internet has the added benefit of complete anonymity, so people can commit libel without reprisal.

  • Books are better

    Because i said it is and i will tell you that the internet is a big lie. I don't care what you say so go cry. I want to live my live and read true stuff not lies. So go ahead and read lies on the internet i don't really care it is not my mind believing lies. So ya bbbbbyyyyyeeee

  • Books Are Reliable

    Books are more reliable than the Internet as few people can get published. By going through all the processes to get published, obviously the information will be accurate and not just written in a hurry. Online, anyway can post what they want and is not always reliable. Just this morning I read on Tumblr a post about 5 Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays in July and after checking, it does not exist. The Internet allows anyone to create information and "facts" but books are more reliable as it is a longer process that verifies accuracy.

  • Yes, but only to a limited extent.

    Publishing on the internet is far easier with less oversight than publishing a book. The complexity of the processes and extra editing gives books an advantage in reliability. However, this does not mean that all books are reliable and all internet sites are unreliable. It is important to use best judgment and think critically about the source.

  • Most of Them Are

    Most books are more reliable than the internet. Books have references and credible sources to back up their information. Most of the internet does not have that. Any and everyone can post information online and not even have to look up if what they're saying is true or not. Books are more credible.

  • Nimrat i love u

    Nsns bdjsNJs? Hdksns. Jdsksnsn jsjsn jdndj jlsbs ks sjsbks jsnsksbksbs jsnsksnsksb. Jan nanakna msnsn sks jsjsbs bbds bjabs zjsnjs usbsjs. Sjsnaian. . . . Jsnaianujsnsjs. Isnsksnjsnj jsNJsjs jsnsjsb jsnsjvsks jsnsjns hsjsn. J. . . Msjbsjsjslnjsbshsk. Jsnsnsnnsksnsjnsksnssnsnsknjnsl. Ksnsjs. Jsjsnsn. . Bdndkdndjd jxnx jd djx jd djd. Jdjdbd jdjdnd jd xidbis udnd idbdb. Jdn jx jx xbdd xhd sjdnsi jdndkjdn idnd dbdnd. Djbx. Dn jdnd x

  • Internet is better.

    Internet is a very compact sort of information source. It is very much updated as uploading something on the internet takes maximum 5 minutes. Whereas if you want to do the same with books, by the time you will finish publishing it the news will be modified or old. Also the internet gives accurate information checked and corrected by many people whereas the author of the book may be racist and/or hurt someone's religious or personal outlook. Hence Internet is better.

  • Both should be fact-checked.

    When you are using something as a source, whether it is the Internet or a physical book, you should be sure that the source is legitimate. Anything can be biased, whether it is printed pages or something online. Anything can be false. Something being published in a book does not make it inherently more reliable than something on the internet.

  • When the author writes he can do whatever he wants

    If you live in america, pick up a history book about the civil war and you will see something along the lines of "Oh the British were being bad people who were taxing us and doing bad things so we fought back and got freedom."

    Now picking up a British history book about the civil war and you will see something along the lines of "America was evil and wouldn't accept out help and then attacked us. They're bad guys." Basically when the author of a book has it, he can write whatever he wanted and no one would truly know what he is writing is true or accurate.

    Same with science books, we discover new things every day, but since books are expensive and take forever to make, they will always be outdated no matter what. The internet though, the information can go online instantly, and update constantly.

    Also if someone did say something inaccurate online most people will go out and prove it false.

  • Most people who say yes are bogus

    Everyone only says books are more reliable because they went through publishers and the internet is bad because people can post stuff
    in reality there are numerous people that fact check things on wikipedia and other websites
    thinking the internet is bogus just because anyone can post on it is not very smart
    (also i see lots of people say that the internet is bad because anyone can post anything on it without doing any research is kinda hypocritical because they don't do research)

  • They are outdated

    I haven't seen A text book that has been pubished in the past 5 years ever at my school. The circilum has changed in more affehent ways to learn better and if you are at your house and you don't understand how to answer the questions you can't do stuff

  • Can be outdated

    Neither are the best form of sources and books can sometimes be outdated. So can the internet but something like a Wikipedia can be altered over time and updated by multiple people though that can lead to people updating with false information. Apparently i need 8 more words. . . Okay then.

  • Both can be reliable or irreliable

    People assume that because print sources need to go through some sort of publishing process, they are more accurate, but on the contrary, books can be just as inaccurate as the internet. For example, Alex Jones wrote an entire book suggesting that the United States government had orchestrated 9/11 and because of the perception of books as accurate, there is less of an inclination to find multiple sources that support the same theories.

    If you use either as a source, you should ensure that they come from respected authors and publishers and double check all information you collect.

  • Fartnjnjnhnjnhnjnj hjnjn ink

    Sky's,systems, dkdkcckvyvuigvugvguvguvguvgyvygvjgvguvguvugvguvguvugvgyvygvygvygvguvguvugvguvgu M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mom m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m k k chugging fav vyuvuyvuhvugvguvugvugvgu j m I. I'm

  • Internet is better

    The internet saves more time an energy for example let's say you have a book report on animals. If you wanted to read a book you would have to buy it but on the internet all you need to do is search it up on google. It's the 21st century so wake and smell the keyboard people.

  • Books are too trusted

    There are tons of authors who write false books because they will sell like the whole cherry tree myth about George Washington was written in the book "The Life Of Washington" and since it was a book people believed it. But with the internet people are more weary and know to doule check the information.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.