Inventory System: Executive Summary

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.

Because so many people have access to posting whatever information they want, there is a large amount of inaccurate information online. One reason for inaccuracy may be that bits and pieces were taken out of a particular story so it could be broadcasted in less time leaving the viewer or listener to fill in the missing pieces using their own assumptions. Also, websites such as Wikipedia cannot be trusted for accuracy because anyone can log on and change 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)

Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information? Author, John Seigenthaler in his narrative article published in 2005 in the USA Today “A False Wikipedia Biography,” he begins his personal story by describing how his character was assassinated by publishing false and malicious “biography” under his name on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia. His first goal is to convey millions of people that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool. His second goal is to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. By establishing his credibility, building his case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Seigenthaler succeeds in writing an interesting and informative

Wikipedia counts 75,000 editors who check the articles and their content to make sure that the information is valid and reliable. According to Schaffer (2009), the journal Nature conducted a study in 2005 and proved that Wikipedia is just as valid as any other encyclopedia, including Britannica, keeping in mind that errors and vandalism can occur to any of them (para. 2).

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).

While advances in technology can be beneficial, the growing need to have answers at our fingertips has contributed to issues with the credibility of websites. The internet is bursting with information that can be obtained through search engines or databases. However, problems arise when it comes to determining the accuracy behind the content obtained because some of

In the Article “Wikipedia Comes of Age” by Casper Grathwohl is published by The Chronicle of Higher Education. His point of view in this article is Wikipedia can be a good source but students and researchers may mistake this as a reliable source. He claims that it is a good formal source instead of main source. The Author feels it confuses students and researchers by having it peer reviewed,edited and having it change all the time can be unreliable for a source. The author talks about the past when you could go into a bookstore to look up facts and references in the past like it’s a lifetime ago but in actuality it was just a short time ago.

“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.

The Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source.

First off, Wikipedia is considered unreliable by so many people and organizations because “anyone is allowed to be a contributer to the website.” (“Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource?” 2015) On top of that, Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, has said on multiple occasions in

We have reached the halfway point for our classes. It is amazing how quickly time gets going once homework starts coming due. This week we are discussing unreliability in our research sources. This is an extremely important topic because one bad piece of information in your paper can lead to a loss of credibility. The first topic for our forum this week is why Wikipedia is an unreliable and unaccepted source. Plan and simple, anyone can go on a Wikipedia page and change the information to whatever they want. I have known this for a long time. I was very fortunate to have a college professor who informed our class that the idea of Wikipedia is letting anyone post material about anything they want. This includes changing text

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)

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