Argument On 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).

“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

In the Article “Wikipedia Comes of Age” by Casper Grathwohl is published by The Chronicle of Higher Education. His point of view in this article is Wikipedia can be a good source but students and researchers may mistake this as a reliable source. He claims that it is a good formal source instead of main source. The Author feels it confuses students and researchers by having it peer reviewed,edited and having it change all the time can be unreliable for a source. The author talks about the past when you could go into a bookstore to look up facts and references in the past like it’s a lifetime ago but in actuality it was just a short time ago.

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.

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?

He asks us, “Is the internet making us smarter?” Shirky made a point and said that “Wikipedia took the idea of peer review and applied it to volunteers on a global scale…” Wikipedia became the most essential English resource. Wikipedia holds around 100 million hours of human thought. This means that whatever we search in Wikipedia can be found; you can instantly have access to definitions and encyclopedia on just about anything.

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

In “A False Wikipedia Biography,” Seingenthaler attempts to demonstrate the logic of his position. In paragraph 14, for example, he explains that, Wales (Wikipedia founder) insisted that his website is accountable and his volunteer editors correct mistakes within minutes. However, in paragraph 15, Seingenthaler experience refutes the stated as his false biography appeared on Wikipedia for four months without correction. This evidence logically supports his claim and evidence, which builds an appeal to logos and impress upon the reader that this is a problem worth of

Both writers are instructors in higher education settings, and are agreeable in the fact that Wikipedia has become successful as an online anonymous open-source encyclopedia containing over 1.6 million entries. They further share agreement that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of good factual quality information due to the nature of its assembly. This is where Wilson and Waters begin their independent views and opposing arguments about solutions for correcting and making Wikipedia a more viable and reliable source of information.

As the resource implies these are community-created which suggests collaboration. Some of the advantages are that multiple individuals can access and utilize the resource at the same time, changes not only can be made by anyone, but it is also updated the moment the change takes place without lag time, and there is a plethora of information on search topic and links to provide other or additional information (Village, 2014). However, some of the advantages to community-created resources are also the downfalls. One has been told that websites such as, Wikipedia should not be utilized for research as it may not be a credible source. This point of view seems to make sense, as many individuals can create and edit a Wiki page, yet it does not mean that the information is necessarily accurate or placed there by a credible

What is one of the most common Wikipedia mistakes. Well, it is something that might surprise most people. For example, you are a well-known politician and decide to write a brief article or biography on your rise to fame. Perhaps, you are a local athlete filled with pride about your accomplishments. Of course, you could have a new start up online and are trying to promote the business through writing an article for Wikipedia. Is this a good idea? The fact is that there is just no way that this could be a good idea. Let's take a closer look at the reasons to avoid self promotion or writing about yourself on Wikipedia.

Badke (2008) begins his article reminding us that Wikipedia although controversial is still the online encyclopedia of choice by 36% of the United States population according to Pew Internet & American Life Project’s findings. (As quoted by Badke, para. 1)

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