Accuracy Of Wikipedia

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).

“As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation,” he said.

“Questioning Wikipedia” is an excellent series of articles written by author Nick Carr. Carr parses through some of the critical issues facing the website today. The most interesting subject Carr delves into is the debate between “inclusionists” and “deletionists” currently taking place among users of the site. Those who are “inclusionist” believe Wikipedia should publish a wide variety of articles, from pieces on Ernest Hemingway to pieces on cartoon characters from the 1950s. These users do not believe some knowledge is more important than other knowledge. To some individuals, cartoons from past generations are more important than famous American authors. To other people, famous American authors are more important. The value of the content

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 Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source.

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?

The article is questionable because it does not come from a reputable source and the article is not written by medical scientist or medical doctors. The article is written by a lot of different people and can even be edited and written by anyone. Wikipedia can have inaccurate information, and a person can write information as you read. Wikipedia can't be verified by no source, and the article does have errors and mis leading facts, and some of the information is incorrect. The article is not updated on the information. Wikipedia is not easy to understand and read on some of the material on scope and purpose of Wikipedia.

This semester I had the opportunity to choose and edit a Wikipedia page article. Essentially, almost any person can edit any Wikipedia article but there are certain guidelines a user must go by to have successful edits. I could have chosen over 5 million articles to revise and I chose the article titled sock monkey. Editing the sock monkey article required organization, research, and follow-ups so that this process can produce a successful edit. My first step was to choose an article to edit and I discovered this page and I thought it could use improvements. Next, I organized a list of possible changes I could make. Then, I researched the sock monkey’s origins, popularity, and presence in pop culture. Lastly, I edited the actual Wikipedia page.

Seigenthaler explains to his readers why websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information. He also wants to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. People don’t need any expertise or knowledge to post any kind of information. The author also thinks that some individuals may post false information out of malice. He adopts an angry and frustrated tone in his entire article. This can be seen in his use of the words “sick mind,” “mind-blogging,” “toxic sentences,” “poison- pen intellects,” “irresponsible.” Seigenthaler assumes his readers are unaware of Wikipedia is an unreliable source. In order to appeal

Wikipedia first off is an online encyclopedia where you can get useful information. It is known as a special type of website that is really designed to make it easy for a person to research information. This website is sometimes reliable but may not be as reliable as people claim it to be. When you’re in the younger grades such as sixth or seventh grade they make sure that your sources on papers should not use Wikipedia because some of the stuff they put on their website can be false information. They want you to find your information from other websites and if you do use Wikipedia your paper won’t count or your paper will have a deduction of points. They do this because Wikipedia is known to have false information, it’s so easy to corrupt

The online encyclopedia website, Wikipedia, provides general information varying from movies, television shows, theories, concepts and much more information to users comprising of individuals twenty years old or younger, known as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). Authorship, meaning to be the originator or writer of an idea (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014) is valued by “literate man”(McCluhan,1969) compared to that of a “digital native”. Controversy is created concerning the use of Wikipedia since “literate man” value authorship much more than a “digital native”. In order for Wikipedia to acquire legitimacy from “literate man” Wikipedia must explicitly give credit to the authors of its articles and indicate their credentials within the text.

In her article, Murley (2010) presents different reasons to use Wikipedia to teach students how to evaluate and edit articles. She believes that she has found Wikipedia to be a valuable source to find a link or reference to answer questions.

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