How Is Wikipedia Reliable

According to the article, “Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia” written by Mark E. Moran, an Irish student by the name of Shane Fitzgerald posted a fake quotation on a Wikipedia article about a deceased French composer named Maurice Jarre. Later, Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use websites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. This proves that, while the person behind the screen publishing this article may know it is false, it can appear just as trustworthy as any other fact in the article. It also says in the article “Warming Up to the Culture of Wikipedia” by Noam Cohen, “...many curators are suspicious of a site where anyone can create and edit an article, and where the assertions of expertise are greeted with skepticism or, at best, a shrug.” This shows that it is not only some schools that may fear inaccurate evidence, but that museums are also skeptical of websites like

“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

The article "Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia In My Class" is based on writer Neil L. Waters’s belief that the website Wikipedia.com should not be utilized as a academic research source in the article Waters describes what he finds are the strengths and weaknesses of the site. He argues the open source structure of the website is the best and worst feature of Wikipedia. Water states “Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source.” His reasoning behind this quote is that any individual can edit the articles and provide inaccurate information that may later be used in an academic paper, which he provided an example of. The author also goes on to explain his role in a policy adopted by the university he worked

Reliability and credibility of a website is extremely important when we seek information. A good method to corroborate if the source is trustworthy is to identify the authors credentials, who is sponsoring the page, and if the information could be verified. Judgments emitted by experts in any field can give the notion that those arguments are valid. An error committed by Renee Schoof on his article was to not include the sources from which preceded the information he present. The process of verifying facts involves identifying these sources of information; this in turn helps to assess whether the information is reliable.

Wikipedia the site where users are able to change the work made by authors is not a credible source.Wikipedia does not have a way to make sure the information users seek is fact or fiction due to the fact that it does not have any security measures to prevent users from making unauthorized changes to information, which makes it unreliable for research.Wikipedia should not belong in the college classroom for doing research and should be banned from the classroom for having false information.The site wikipedia is not an adequate source for students due to the liability of misleading information.

but for the present sources are not reliable because our world in this time meet big hakkers. they able to get whatever they want and change anything in any of articles had posted in websites. also, today is not that hard to change anything because no strong censorship no observation about many things are very important which can save the wrights.

I recently read an article written by Neil L Waters called “Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class”. The comment that Neil Waters made about how Wikipedia may lead to a citable source, is reason enough to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a website that can help with writing a paper and not hinder it. For example, when you are looking for information on Wikipedia it bluntly tells the reader that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia which will allow anyone to edit or submit an article. Wikipedia is the largest and most known websites to obtain a reference from. Due to the fact that anyone can add what they assume is important makes the website credibility questionable. This is why most professors do not allow it as a reference when writing a paper. Neil wrote an article about why students were not allowed to use Wikipedia in his class. He stated his students are responsible for the accuracy of information they provide, and they cannot point to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors. He even went on the further explain that Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a suitable

There is a vast amount of information to be found on the Wikipedia website. The website is considered a crowd sourced encyclopedia in which most can contribute as long as they cite reliable sources. This allows for a plethora of information but it also allows for incorrect information, particular opinions, attitudes and motivations as

There are no formats keeping wicked and false information off of the Wikipedia page. The pages are clearly policed through other editors in the name of accuracy. Furthermore, editors are personally attack and subject to abuse language from other editors, which purely is not a vehicle to use as educational purposes or conduct intellectual discussion. One of the editors providing an edit for the Sweatt v Painter page had some graphic anti-gay comments posted on their Wikipedia personal page. The editor had posted on their page, “FrUCK YOU HOMOr GET THE FrUCK OUT OF HERE.... THE BRONZE FISH IS REAL AND KILL YOU... YOU ARE FrUCKING GrAY! I HOPE YOU FrUCKING DIE! BRONZE FISH ISN'T VANDALISM I WAS MAKING A PAGE YOU JACKOFF FreCKING VIRGIN CrOCKMASTER...BRONZE FISH FOREVER....)” Clearly, the personal remarks were not written from a scholarly point of view and the comments showed that Wikipedia has no filter system. The concept behind the creation of the Wikipedia page really is a remarkable model, however using it for more than information purposes, like win an argument with a friend or first grade history project, Wikipedia is an excellent resource or reference, but beyond that academic value, absolutely

Since its creation in “2001,” Wikipedia has grown to be the “largest and most popular general reference work on the internet” (Wikipedia). According to Alexa, a company owned by Amazon which collects and distributes statistics on website traffic, Wikipedia is currently the “[sixth]” most popular website in the United States, and the “[fifth]” most popular website worldwide (wikipedia.org Traffic Statistics). However, there are several groups of people who argue that Wikipedia’s collaborative emphasis also is its greatest flaw, as it makes the encyclopedia lack credibility, and as a result, they believe that the site is unfit for use in an academic setting. While it is true that the anonymity of Wikipedia’s editors significantly reduces the

The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted publicity.[2][3]

Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia has become the de facto source when you want fast access to information on, well, just about anything. Some studies suggest Wikipedia is generally a pretty reliable source of information. But new research suggests that even if Wikipedia is usually reliable, disputes over politically controversial science pages could prevent users from getting the facts they need.

Since Wikipedia pages must contain unbiased, verifiable facts, backed up with sources, it's challenging for the average

Throughout today’s society there are many ways to gather information, and the quickest and easiest way to get access to this information is through the internet. The internet is the fastest source in the palm of our hands, which can be used to do wonderful things and spread valuable news or it can also be used to spread false and misleading information. There are many online news websites used that can be very reliable such as CNN which is just one example of a very reliable source. One way to easily depict a good source from a bad source online is the type of publishers and also the type of website for finding information. For example, finding a topic off of Wikipedia compared to a topic off of a government based website is probably not the best source of information. Having a reliable source such as the government or other sources is something we can trust, rather than a website where any individual can change the content.

Nowadays, lots of students have been told not to use Wikipedia because it is a not reputable resource content as everyone not necessarily a expert; everyone can edit and write the content on every wiki page; the regulation and edition are detective; also, deliberate destruction is common like the numerous figures and anyone would erase their unfavorable content which would bring some negative impact for them. These are the reasons why some academics discredit the Wikipedia. But, is this really a reason why we should not use Wikipedia? Or it is just since professors do not trust the information or do not trust the people who edited the