What would be the most reputable sources I can use?

Your most reputable sources for the type of research you are doing will be in books from the library. (Librarians have already sorted out the good stuff from the garbage!) Ask your reference librarian for help in locating the best you can find for the NARROW topic you are focusing on.

If you feel you just HAVE to have something from the Internet, here are some librarians' webpages explaining how to tell the good stuff from the rest:

http://www.sou.edu/library/searchtools/evaluate.html

http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html
Read the Criteria section; practice on the Examples section.

=)

Some even dispute the
Ten Commandments as not coming from God, so the concept reputable is the first thing one has to define.
Are experts reputable? It depends, did they have an ax to grind in saying/writing what they stated?
I find more and more as I get experienced in life, reputable is a shaky concept, as is reputation. The more valid truth comes from several sources, if possible.
The most reputable sources are those who are recognized as such in a particular field. Many professions have their own peer review processes that filter out (sometimes) weird ideas. Although not perfect, peer review of "experts" is about as good as one gets. So being recognized in the field is important. But it is not enough. I remember a few years ago Linus Pauling (look him up) was advocating massive (really massive) doses of Vitamin C as a cure for cancer. He was about as reputable is a person comes, but he was wrong, and in fact, a quack.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/c.html

So the question begs for an answer. 1) My advice is to look for several sources, sort out vested interests (Vitamin merchants still quote Pauling on Vitamin C, you can find many on the web).
2) Look for sources that have submitted themselves to professional Peer Review in their technical societies.
3) Look for sources that have a history of correctness and validity. If you are not an expert in the field, this is difficult.

When you want to trust someone, ask who is the author, what is their expertise, what are their vested interests?

Good luck.

When looking for reputable sources, it is important to consider a few factors. First, books from the library are often considered reputable because librarians have already sorted out the good information from the unreliable. Second, when using the internet, it is essential to evaluate the sources carefully. Librarians' webpages can help you discern between reliable and unreliable sources. They often provide criteria for evaluation and examples to practice on.

However, it is crucial to note that determining the reputation of a source can be subjective. Some may dispute the credibility of certain experts or even question the concept of reputation itself. In such cases, it is advisable to seek information from multiple sources and not rely solely on one expert or opinion.

While being recognized in a specific field can make a source reputable, it is not always sufficient. It is essential to consider if the expert has any biases or personal agendas that could influence their statements. Peer review processes, where experts review and assess the work of their peers, can help filter out unreliable information. However, even reputable experts can be wrong, as seen in the example of Linus Pauling's incorrect advocacy for high doses of Vitamin C as a cancer cure.

Therefore, when looking for reputable sources, it is recommended to:

1. Seek information from multiple sources to get a broader perspective.
2. Consider any vested interests or biases the authors may have.
3. Look for sources that have undergone professional peer review in their respective fields.
4. Assess the history of correctness and validity of the source.
5. Consider the expertise and credentials of the author.

By considering these factors and evaluating the sources critically, you can increase the likelihood of finding reputable information.