A False Wikipedia Biography Analysis

Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).

Apon revisiting the web site NewsComAu.com, I realised that I had overlooked certain criteria while compiling our online presentation, and although the website’s coverage and currency are good, and the information I used is ratified by other sources, I now notice that the article I used is not referenced and the website is full of advertisements and sensational stories, which although not wrong in itself, would tend to question the objectivity and in turn the authority of the site, and I would hesitate to use it again, NewsComAu, (2014). Eelink.net (1999) inform us that although it is wise to evaluate a website, that ‘good information can be found on bad sites’, and re affirms the need to evaluate the information found on a website as well as the website itself. This becomes particularly applicable if we cannot find information on our subject of research on so called ‘good sites’, which may in fact turn out to have a bias regarding even reporting certain information. This leads us to consider our personal bias, which according to Eelink.net (1999) we all have. Our bias needs to be taken into consideration, because if unchecked this could cause us to dismiss information while researching a subject simply because we personally disagree with it,

When students are doing research on the internet, Wikipedia is usually one of the first site to appear. For students, the site is usually tempting to click, but they are quickly reminded by their teachers that Wikipedia should not be used as a site of knowledge. They label the site as inaccurate, unreliable, and uncreditable. In Boyd’s article she writes that teachers consistently tell students to stay clear of Wikipedia at all cost. Students should not have to see the site as tempting. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. Wikipedia has so much educational potential and should not be ignored by teachers. Boyd also writes that some analyses have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as creditable as, if not more reliable than, more traditional resources.

Eventhough, the internet can be helpful with education, it can also be unreliable. However, “The Hive” by Marchall Poe, was the openness of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can use it. This might work for some people specially that ones who attend school or college. This is very helpful for them because in Wikipedia you can search or find anything you would like. Since anyone can write, or delete or use information off of Wikipedia, it makes it less controversial because anyone can put their input into the website. If don’t agree with something, that’s alright because you can add your own opinion. Poe describes how authors of certain wiki pages write with a bias to support their facts. Facts become opinions when feelings and emotions of bias get involved. “Instead of relying on experts to

The Wikipedia article on Robert Smalls is not a reliable source of information. Simply because Wikipedia is a form of online Encyclopedia; and you cannot cite Encyclopedia’s to begin with. That being said, I do not think students or the general user should dismiss the source completely because it does have a lot of valuable information in it. Wikipedia is there as a first step in your research, to inform you and give you a good solid background of information you are looking for before you start your deeper research. Personally, I really enjoy Wikipedia because it helps me look for certain points in my research and it makes it a little bit easier. Some people assume that any website is reliable or that only .Edu, .Gov, and .Org are. Even

Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information? Author, John Seigenthaler in his narrative article published in 2005 in the USA Today “A False Wikipedia Biography,” he begins his personal story by describing how his character was assassinated by publishing false and malicious “biography” under his name on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia. His first goal is to convey millions of people that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool. His second goal is to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. By establishing his credibility, building his case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Seigenthaler succeeds in writing an interesting and informative

Because so many people have access to posting whatever information they want, there is a large amount of inaccurate information online. One reason for inaccuracy may be that bits and pieces were taken out of a particular story so it could be broadcasted in less time leaving the viewer or listener to fill in the missing pieces using their own assumptions. Also, websites such as Wikipedia cannot be trusted for accuracy because anyone can log on and change information.

While advances in technology can be beneficial, the growing need to have answers at our fingertips has contributed to issues with the credibility of websites. The internet is bursting with information that can be obtained through search engines or databases. However, problems arise when it comes to determining the accuracy behind the content obtained because some of

But like everything else this can also have it’s draw backs. Because there is so much information out there that is not credible, the problem is how do we know which one is and which one is not. I am glad that I have found out that the wikipedia site is not a reliable source because this is one of the first ones that pops up after we input what we want to find out. This

However, regardless of whether the print industry actually is dying or not, a publisher is responsible, both legally and ethically, for every manuscript they put onto our shelves. This essay argues that publishers need to make fact checking part of the standard publishing procedure to uphold their legal and ethical responsibilities to the public. Forbidden Lies by Norma Khouri will be used as a case study throughout the essay. First, this essay will give a brief overview of the Norma Khouri hoax, then move on to discuss why fact checking is not commonplace in the book publishing industry. Next, it will assess where the legal and ethical responsibilities lie — with the author or publisher. After this, it will examine the financial repercussions and damage to a publisher 's reputation after the publication of a literary hoax. Then, it will begin to examine the ethical damage literary hoaxes cause to the readers who are

Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan, and John Riedl, the authors’ language use and their connectivity to the audience felt more natural and appropriate. Halfacker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl’s article was similar to a written research paper and research papers are papers written to get a message across to the public. They had headings that of a research paper such as the introduction, the hypothesis, methods used, discussion, results, and conclusion. Not only that, they used complex professional language which indicated that they knew what they were talking about and that they know the worth of the paper they are writing. “Wikipedia has changed from “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit” (Halfacker, para. 91).

In Carrs article he discusses the way that the Internet gives us a false sense of knowledge. When we want to know about something we Google it. We find the article title that is closest to what we are searching for and we click it. In our everlasting quest to be know-it-alls we skim and skim or look for bold words and sentences until we feel that the information we have now obtained is suffice and we are considered knowledgeable about the topic. Although we feel this way, this “knowledge” is usually based off of two or three sentences that are compact and straight to the point.

Wikipedia has existed since January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written and edited by volunteers. Murley states that as of March 2008, Wikipedia contained more than nine million articles, of which two million were in English. More than 75,000 contributors write in more than 250 languages. (2010, p. 594) However, any one can edit an existing article by clicking on the edit tab found at the top of an article. Only anonymous registered users add new articles. These articles must meet Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. All references must be verifiable and the tone must be neutral. If the article does not meet all of the criteria, Wikipedia’s

One of the strengths of using a text-based biography is that you can get the story to contain the most information on your subject. While a movie is a much more entertaining form of portraying a life story, it will not contain the same amount of information that a text story will have. A certain amount of attention will be put into making the movie looks it best. When simply writing a story, all you have to worry about is the correct spelling and grammar. One of the weaknesses of using a text based life story is that is can get quite boring very quickly. If you get 3000 words worth of text, it would take something around 5-10 minutes to read that, with a movie it would take a similar amount of time to portray the same amount of information.

The Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that lets every individual with Internet connection write and edits its articles. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched their creation in 2001 giving an opportunity to all willing people to work together to develop a common resource of knowledge. Many people have different believes and ideas about Wikipedia, therefore, some tend to think of it as a credible and valid source of information, others strongly disagree. “Since all the books and articles have been chosen for publication, each one has presumably undergone some form of selection and review” (Spatt, 2011, “p.”339-340). Unfortunately, this statement is simply not enough to