Informative Essay 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).

“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.

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.

Cheerleading began for me at the age of twelve. In the past I had played soccer, basketball, softball, did ballet. Basically every activity my mom could possibly put me in. All of those activities were okay, but cheerleading became something that was special to me. I first began cheering in middle school for the Hazelwood West Junior Wildcats. I cheered on the team throughout middle school literally dedicating all of my free time to cheerleading. I lived, ate, and dreamed cheer. I went on to continue cheering throughout my high school career, cheering for all Hazelwood West athletics, including: soccer, football, basketball, and wrestling. I was a hardcore dedicated athlete, and I had spirit like no other. From

High School Teachers have been adamantly against the use of Wikipedia as a credible source in essays. Students have been told by them that because anyone can post information on Wikipedia, that the information is always changing, and that it has been known to be wrong before, Wikipedia is not a safe place to receive reliable academic information. In Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production, Danah Boyd offers persuasive and interesting perspectives on why Wikipedia is a credible source for information. Boyd is attempting to convince teachers to give Wikipedia a chance using students personal stories, it’s strengths as a collaborative source of info, and examining Wikipedia’s pros and cons. Wikipedia has its weaknesses but also excels in areas

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 number one major criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a creditable source of information. Wikipedia allows for laypersons, in addition to their staff editors, to contribute to the information within the websites database. While the contributors may very well be reliable their identity is often unknown; leaving the researcher unable to verify their contribution and sort out any personal bias from the writer. Wikipedia’s own website states that its not creditable because “anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed.” (Wikipedia: DGG, 2007)

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

Wikipedia is a website that people use as a resource for many reasons. Such as, proving they’re correct in an argument, academic reason, or just for fun. Though the entries on Wikipedia can be created and edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is a not credible source.

Both articles compare because they express the issues with trusting Wikipedia as a resourceful site. They both discuss how unreliable Wikipedia has become over the years. Although Wikipedia may have started as being a reliable source, it has become a freely edited site. Both articles discuss how the site has become a major problem in the classroom. Students have become accustomed to getting all of their research on Wikipedia . By allowing Wikipedia to be an open editing source it has become unreliable . Niel Water discusses how many entries on Wikipedia have incorrect information . If a person is not informed on the topic, they can be easily fooled by false information . For example , the entry about Ogyu Sorai has incorrect facts . He has

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

In the article “A Brief History of Wikipedia” the author Dan Fletcher explains how Wikipedia was founded and the complications they fixed. In the first paragraph, he was explaining how Wikipedia started with its first article on a Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen. That the article reached 3 million entries from other people, and how impressive it was. Then he talks about how Wikipedia.com went live on Jan. 15, 2001 and how fast it made its self-popular on the Ethernet. During the proses of popularity since Wikipedia had an issue with the Church of Scientology messing with articles so they blocked their IP from the website, and people volunteered to monetize and fix articles that were messed with bad intentions. Later in the article, Wikipedia

When one searches to find reliable information on the Internet, they must keep in mind; there are very few sources published on the web that can be trusted without looking into the background of that source itself. One of the most famous examples of this idea is the digital encyclopedia Wikipedia. Every student has been warned to be careful of what they read on this website and take as true because of the fact that everyone is able to make edits on the articles. Comparatively, a newer digital encyclopedia called Conservapedia claims to be the trustworthy version of Wikipedia. Even though there are specific deference’s between the encyclopedias, they still share many of the same qualities.

In her article, Murley (2010) presents different reasons to use Wikipedia to teach students how to evaluate and edit articles. She believes that she has found Wikipedia to be a valuable source to find a link or reference to answer questions.

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