Explanation Of Using 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).

Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a

Buddha once said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Thousands of years later this is still relevant and gives an important to today’s youth: don’t believe everything you hear. Today, many adolescents use websites like Google and Wikipedia to help them research for any projects. They see it as a quick way to answer any question because all they have to do is type in the question and write down what the screen tell them. Little do they know, they could be writing down false evidence simply because they trusted the internet. Wikipedia is not appropriate for academic research because it can be edited and posted by anyone and false information can stay on the site for months before being corrected.

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 this assignment I am going to be talking about a complex piece of work that I have already done for an assignment, and I will be explaining the value of 3 different resources and evaluating the 3 sources in terms of validity. The 3 resources that I am going to be talking about are: the internet, a text book, and NHS facts. I found all of these resources useful in different ways, and also reliable in different ways. I chose these particular resources because I have many opinions about them, some good, some bad. The

Lydia M. Olson Library, Dec.21, 2009, Evaluating Internet Sources, A Library Resource Guide, retrieved from http://library.nmu.edu/guides/userguides/webeval.htm

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

Discussions between users and editors also take place to ensure the quality and correct information is being published. Wikipedia does realize that work does get by them from time to time and admits that some of the work is complete nonsense. They do not want their work to be used for crucial information but rather to familiarize oneself with a new topic. New ways of governing the website are constantly being explored to improve the overall quality of the work being shared. Ultimately it is the users responsibility to double check information with other sources when needing to find out and use significant information. It has been a very helpful tool throughout the years to find information quickly and is generally a dependable way of finding out new

I also know of other of my classmates doing the same thing, I imagine that this is something done regularly among high schoolers in America. Boyd’s example implies the question “What is the point of banning the use of Wikipedia if kids are going to use it as a source anyways?” After Boyd gives the example of a boy that used Wikipedia as a reliable source and faking the actual source, Boyd talks about why Wikipedia is

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

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

I would like examine Otto von Bismarck on Wikipedia and Britannica to see how the information entry differs from each other. After going through the information about Bismarck, I noted that most of the information provided on Wikipedia is useful but couldn’t be used as a trusted source for scholarly paper. The information on both Wikipedia and Britannica matches but sources for the information on Wikipedia doesn’t seems to be credible. The reason why the information cannot be trusted is because so many unknown persons added/edited the information and I found it so hard to confirm its accreditation. For example, after going through the information about Bismarck on Wikipedia, I scrolled down to check the source and references for the information

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