How Is Wikipedia Reliable

Majority of students who enroll in history classes partake in analyzing and gaining knowledge from secondary sources. Secondary sources are second hand accounts after an event has occurred. In particular, there are two secondary sources that students utilize and they are lectures and Wikipedia. Despite being secondary sources, there should be careful consideration when analyzing them. Any material that is taught, displayed, or portrayed in lecture are far more reliable than what is presented in Wikipedia. In an academic setting, it is better to always reference and use information from what was taught in lecture than from Wikipedia. It is not a bad resource to use. In fact, Wikipedia is a type of source that provides information for a variety of things that is accessible via the Internet. However, cautionary actions should take place since Wikipedia is a database that can is written or changed practically by anyone. Since this is the case, there can be instances

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

All newspaper articles have an author and all authors are human, just like the rest of the people in this world, so they are bound to have an opinion. Therefore the presence of bias, even in the most credible of sources, is inevitable For example, in one article about the repeal of Obamacare it will go on and on about how the repeal is great for those with pre-existing conditions. On another hand other article will be extremely against the repeal because it’s going to really hurt those with pre-existing conditions. Another example, would be the story of the doctor being dragged off a United Airlines plane. Some newspaper will just tell you the fact that he was dragged off the plane in a brutal way and some newspapers will tell you how he was escorted off and then snuck back onto the plane and then resisted to leave the second time he was asked to leave. If someone only hears

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

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.

Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan, and John Riedl, the authors’ language use and their connectivity to the audience felt more natural and appropriate. Halfacker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl’s article was similar to a written research paper and research papers are papers written to get a message across to the public. They had headings that of a research paper such as the introduction, the hypothesis, methods used, discussion, results, and conclusion. Not only that, they used complex professional language which indicated that they knew what they were talking about and that they know the worth of the paper they are writing. “Wikipedia has changed from “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit” (Halfacker, para. 91).

The internet is the largest collection of accessible information ever, so it comes as no surprise that the internet is a major part of daily life. The use of the internet is so common that it has made its way into some important areas of society. Namely, the workplace, the educational system, and general leisure time, in and out of the home. However, people should understand that there are allot of unreliable sources that are waiting for you to enter their domain. Granted, there are reliable sources, as well. The difference is that a reliable source is there to provide readers or viewers with correct information. Namely, written and created by someone who has expertise in that subject like Microsoft. On the other hand, an unreliable

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

Many people claim that information on online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia may be inaccurate because the contributors are anonymous (Seigenthaler). Many anonymous writers may lack the required academic background or related experience to write credible articles. Articles that are written by non-academic writers may contain factual errors or unverified information. Moreover, articles that are edited by unprofessional editors may not present the intended ideas clearly or the articles may not to be structured properly. Furthermore, the free editing also reduces the information accuracy. Because any user can edit content, some articles may not hold a neutral point of view. Articles may contain the author's personal political beliefs, religious beliefs and bias. Also, because every user can edit content, hackers and amoral users may use this opportunity to create false information to deceive people. Compared with the online encyclopedia, the accuracy of traditional printed encyclopedia seems to be much higher. For example, the articles in the encyclopedia Britannica "were written by a staff of about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 expert contributors" (Simonson). Not everyone has the chance to write on the traditional printed encyclopedia; hence, the information on it is much more

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.

One criticised: Your writing, has enormous grammatical mistakes and issues Another replied: Because I am a Wikipedian. However, you seem Wikipedian too? One criticised:

Even if the public likes it, though, for the most part academic circles do not. Many professors will not allow their students to use Wikipedia. These professors think Wikipedia is trivial, untrustworthy, insulting, and too often completely incorrect. (2008, para. 4) Could this be because the university world is jealous? It is true that true academics are the experts and if a layperson wants the facts, they are the best resource. However, because of the zealous use of electronic