Credible Information Debate

I understand that "Wikipedia" is an unreliable web site, as it could be good only for an overview. I understand that you must take into account the latest revisions and on some items you may find that they have not been reviewed in over six years. There are also no information items with this source and readers cannot assess the veracity of the arguments in many articles. There are items that do not provide information about the author who is well able to know what your credentials are and see if you've written other articles and books. Many authors write anyone entering your personal opinion not being an expert on the subject. In conclusion there are different criteria that you as a reader to assess the sources of information and it are clear that Wikipedia has invalid information, unverifiable and are even non-expert opinions on the issues set out in the website. There are also articles on Wikipedia where it has no credible appointments and some even have no or just a reference or without. For this reason I understand that this website does not have the criteria for a reader to take it as a credible source of information.The following essay will be evaluated three different scenarios which will select the appropriate channel of communication for a particular situation. Also it will give a definition of what communication is and the different channels.

The communication is defined as the process between the source and receiver, resulting in the transfer and understanding of its meaning. There are two types of communication channels of formal and informal. Formal channels are set by the organization and transmit messages that relate to the professional activities of members. Informal channels are personal or social messages.