Academic Peer Review Process

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).

In the article “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production,” author Danah Boyd writes about how educators are against using Wikipedia as a quality source. She goes into detail about how most students are told to stay clear of the site at all cost because their teachers think it is misleading and inaccurate. On the contrary, Boyd mentions that analysis have shown Wikipedia’s content as creditable as, if not more reliable than, traditional resources. She also writes about some of the sites features that people don’t know about like there discussion boards. Wikipedia has had time to mature over the years and should be seen as a reliable and should be used in schools.

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

Protection provided when a nurse invokes the safe harbor include that the nurse who fills the forms in the good will should not be suspended, terminated disciplined or even discriminated against. Also, the nurse is protected for 48 hours after being advised of the PRC determination. In addition, there is safe harbor rule that has been established to prevent retaliation of nurses by their managers and shield the license of the nurse from actions by the Texas board of nurses when RN reports practices that can detrimentally affect the manner in which the nurse carries out the duties.

Wikipedia has millions of articles online based on a broad range of topics, including termite extermination. Commonly, this web source ranks first in the search engines, but the credibility and reliability fall short in terms of termite extermination. What are some of the ways that Wikipedia does not stand up to the test?

We have reached the halfway point for our classes. It is amazing how quickly time gets going once homework starts coming due. This week we are discussing unreliability in our research sources. This is an extremely important topic because one bad piece of information in your paper can lead to a loss of credibility. The first topic for our forum this week is why Wikipedia is an unreliable and unaccepted source. Plan and simple, anyone can go on a Wikipedia page and change the information to whatever they want. I have known this for a long time. I was very fortunate to have a college professor who informed our class that the idea of Wikipedia is letting anyone post material about anything they want. This includes changing text

Wikipedia is more often than not viewed as an unreliable source when doing research for any particular topic and the reason is the fact that normal people are able to edit any Wikipedia post. It’s so easy for people use Wikipedia as a source simply because it is the first source that comes up when doing a search on a topic and people just assume that everything is correct when that might not be the case. I will be looking at a Wikipedia post about Julius Caesar and seeing the changes that have been made over time to more accurately tell us information about this topic. I will also compare this Wikipedia to another established reference source such as the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). The purpose of this comparison is to see how authoritative

Both articles compare because they express the issues with trusting Wikipedia as a resourceful site. They both discuss how unreliable Wikipedia has become over the years. Although Wikipedia may have started as being a reliable source, it has become a freely edited site. Both articles discuss how the site has become a major problem in the classroom. Students have become accustomed to getting all of their research on Wikipedia . By allowing Wikipedia to be an open editing source it has become unreliable . Niel Water discusses how many entries on Wikipedia have incorrect information . If a person is not informed on the topic, they can be easily fooled by false information . For example , the entry about Ogyu Sorai has incorrect facts . He has

1. Wikipedia helps people find other, more credible sources to cite. They lead people to different and more credible cites and more vast information (Davidson 167). It is also pretty accurate a good amount of the time as well; if does not have many errors and they can and are fixed as soon as they are discovered (Davidson 167).

Wikipedia is a free-access, free-content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Those who can access the site can edit most of its articles. Wikipedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites,

No one really can take or use Wikipedia with any seriousness. The editors can be literally anyone and from any place. The editor could be from any walk of life and share or posses any type of political view. They could be racists or religious fanatics or they could be a conservative or liberal. It does not take much to be an editor for Wikipedia. The editor only must create an account, and they are granted immediate access editing a Wikipedia page of their selection: it really is that simple. There are no venting processes or any procedures gathering editors from any a specific field which would ensure knowledgeable, well-informed or educated editors. In the Sweatt v Painter Wikipedia page, there were roughly about fifty (50) edits since

The first reason being that any peer reviewed article can be found in journals both online and in print (which mine was). These articles are written by experts in a field of study and tend to be longer, more in-depth then articles you find in newspapers and magazines. Secondly, scholarly articles are also supported by references to other research on the subject that is being discussed. Another reason for me believing that my article was heavily peer reviewed and looked over is because it’s from The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post was launched in early May of 2015, as a liberal commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report. In July of 2012, the Huffington Post was ranked number1 on the top 15 most popular political sites list by eBizMBA rank. News sites just do not get to the top spot without having solid articles on their site, which obviously needed to be peer reviewed in order to get to where they

Peer review is a long process. Therefore, submitting to an appropriate journal and following the guidelines of that journal would save a lot of time. One should submit to one journal at a time. This would save us from embarrassment of withdrawing later. All the sections should be meticulously written and should reflect what it is meant to. References should be written with great care and only one style should be used at a time. Language should be simple and the scientific content should be obvious. One should try to minimize common errors such that the peer reviewer accepts the manuscript as such or with

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

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