This article talks about the different ways that wikipedia can be harmful to you research and also the way that wikipedia can help with your research. The article states that Wikipedia is a good source to use in the beginning stages of your research when selecting topics. Wikipedia is good for being research because it gives you a brief yet informative summary on your topic. Wikipedia can also help by giving you links to more credible articles on the particular topic that can be researching. The article also mentioned that wikipedia is also good for coming up with ideas to do research on; because if you type broad topic in wikipedia you are most likely to find topics within that article. Those sub topics that you find on wikipedia will be current and relevant to you target audience because wikipedia is always being updated. …show more content…
Wikipedia is not a credible source for one reason because anybody can go on wikipedia and change information on the site. Another reason is that wikipedia is always changing and being updated when new information is released on that topic. Usually when writing in college your instructor want the writing to be narrowed down and on one particular thing and to have multiple different sources. Beside s wikipedia this article also mentioned the importance of revision. They stated that it is always good to have a peer or someone else review your writing before submitting the finalized version. Revision is good because other people might catch the mistakes that you might have overlooked and they can also help somethings that your should rewrite for clarity purpose. From this article I got that wikipedia is a good starter place for coming up with research topics and gathering information, but not actually good source to
In the Article “How Google, Wikipedia Have Changed Our Lives…” Jennifer Maderazo states that, we’ve become so reliant on electronic information resources. Researching then was implying researching involved going through book after book, making copies, highlighting copies then start to write. Researching Now states that everything research is related to the internet and if not in use there is a feeling of being crippled. In the article learning then gives the feeling of how relying on the classroom experience was more helpful for information. In addition, in learning now says that the tolerance level would be the same as the internet attention span. Based on the past lets us know how we didn’t have the resources to just look up a song or the
Knowledge is a main source of information. Nowadays, we have all sources of information, such as books, newspapers, magazines, Internet, TV, social media, and radio. In the past, the only things people had were newspapers, magazines, and books. It is so much easier to know something new and get involved into some political or cultural events through the web.
Wikipedia is a commonly used site when people are surfing the web. The accuracy of the information on the Wikipedia site is often questioned because anyone with access to the Internet can make changes to Wikipedia’s articles by either contributing anonymously, or with their real identity if they would like. To test Wikipedia’s accuracy of information I have chosen to research Spina Bifida and compare Wikipedia’s information on this topic with multiple other sources that are credible.
Wikipedia was the jumping off point for our topic. When it came to finding out who Jane Addams was we learned did about how she opens the hull house to help others and how it was helping many children. This site was also helping us get the basis of a research that we could use to find more credible sites and books. It also let us know about the hull house because we didn't even know that it existed so it gave us this whole new thing to research about
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).
Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that draws millions to the site every month. Wikipedia includes millions of articles on a wide range of subjects. Marketing experts state that Wikipedia is a great way to establish a business and gain credibility online. Google certainly agrees with that idea. Type a subject into the search box on the search engine. The odds are that a few of the top sites in the search are Wikipedia based. Clearly, writing business focused articles is a good marketing strategy. Just about all the articles appearing on the site are in the top search engine results. However, it is time to debunk a few of those ripe Wikipedia myths, to get started.
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.
“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
“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.
Now that technology is quickly advancing, it is really easy to find information with a click of a button. One highly used search engine in the internet is Google. Many people believe that using Google has made people not use their brains therefore making them stupider. I on the other hand, believe that the internet is a great resource and tool for many things if used right and can actually help you learn and make you smarter. For example, having a question and quickly going to Google to find your answer before thinking about it first and coming up with the answer yourself, is not using it right and we shouldn 't take advantage because in this way it may make us stupider instead of making us learn and expand our knowledge about a particular subject.
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 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
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.
There are many different resources I have found helpful in finding information. I use all the regular searches like EBSCOhost and opposing viewpoints. I do find the library full of help there is always a lot of good information there. In my current circumstances I work full time and my second child is due any day now. That makes it hard to find time to go to a library. One thing I use to find information is Wikipedia. Before you say it, I know that people can just write anything on there. I use it to find the topic and go to the link where they found their sources for what they wrote. A lot of it will come from credible journals and articles. So, don’t use Wikipedia to quote just use it to find their sources of information. If they don’t have
Personally, I have always avoided the use of Wikipedia as a source. Since elementary school, it was drilled into my head that Wikipedia was unreliable due to the fact that anyone and everyone can edit the information. I’ve noticed though, that this class uses Wikipedia as a source quite frequently, if not in every lecture so far. Should I be changing my views on Wikipedia? This weeks lecture definitely shifted my outlook on the webpage. I learned that there are many people monitoring Wikipedia and it’s user’s edits known as administrators. Administrators are privileged users elected by their peers, who volunteer to be stewards of Wikipedia, “ who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and try to prevent certain persons from editing” (Wikipedia, 2015, September 27). In addition, “the other thing Wikipedia is admit about is citations” (Stuff You’ve Probably Wondered, 2015, February 16). Before now, I was never informed about these two key items of information. Now knowing these, I’d be much more confident using