Is Information On The Net Reliable? Essay

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).

Apon revisiting the web site NewsComAu.com, I realised that I had overlooked certain criteria while compiling our online presentation, and although the website’s coverage and currency are good, and the information I used is ratified by other sources, I now notice that the article I used is not referenced and the website is full of advertisements and sensational stories, which although not wrong in itself, would tend to question the objectivity and in turn the authority of the site, and I would hesitate to use it again, NewsComAu, (2014). Eelink.net (1999) inform us that although it is wise to evaluate a website, that ‘good information can be found on bad sites’, and re affirms the need to evaluate the information found on a website as well as the website itself. This becomes particularly applicable if we cannot find information on our subject of research on so called ‘good sites’, which may in fact turn out to have a bias regarding even reporting certain information. This leads us to consider our personal bias, which according to Eelink.net (1999) we all have. Our bias needs to be taken into consideration, because if unchecked this could cause us to dismiss information while researching a subject simply because we personally disagree with it,

As Carr continues, he speaks of his extended use of the internet over the last decade, explaining that all information that he once painstakingly searched for is done in minutes with the use of search engines. In doing this, Carr places blame on the internet for breaking his ability to concentrate. Carr presents his arguments in a way that his readers could easily agree. He gradually works up to the idea that the internet has weakened his ability to focus, and as he does this he makes several general statements about the internet’s nature. These points on the net’s nature are so basic that any reader of his article would be inclined to agree with them, and this lends itself to help readers believe the argument Carr wishes to propose. Because it would be hard to provide factual evidence to support his claims, Carr effectively uses logical reasoning to convince the reader.

The printing press and development of writing were another example where people’s way of thought changed. However, Carr makes the statement that writing would go on to “expand human knowledge” and the printing press brought a “myriad of blessings.” Such statements could undermine Carr’s entire essay. He continues to say that the Internet could be such a success as well. However, he then states that the Internet is different from such inventions. Carr notes that what people would lose because of the Internet is much more valuable than what was lost from writing and the printing press. Such a refutation is a major appeal to logos. Additionally, in the beginning of this section, Carr calls himself a possible worrywart. By accepting the possibility that he may be wrong and then going to show how he cannot be wrong greatly appeals to ethos. Finally, he turns back to the use of fear as an appeal of pathos by stating that the Internet could transform humanity into “pancake people.” In effect, this section holds Carr’s entire thesis: to not rely too much on computers and the Internet.

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

Nicholas Carr Claimed that the internet affects our information processing. Carr backed up his argument by speaking with a wide array of educated and reputable people like friends, colleagues, a blogger, GMU and a professor making his argument validity greater. Carr admits that he and his friends also; have the same problem by saying that he was appealing to emotions by using Ethos.

The validity of the information on a website is indicated by the reliability of the information sources and developers, as well as the reliability and expertise of the information reviewers ("Evaluating internet health,”). Claims made by the information should be unbiased and based on fact, not opinion.

In the book by Nicholas Carr, The Shallows, he is arguing how the internet has changed our brains. The thoughts, mental processes, and even the physical brains is being restructured to fit into the new technology that we are being the guinea pig of the testing. Carr informs us that it’s more to it than just knowing that are brains and the human condition are changing, but that the internet isn’t this evil machine. As the people we are making a choice to use this new technology knowing we are losing but also gaining new benefits that the internet provides us.

Carr had experiences of his own working with the web. He researched other writers with similar views on the subject to support his own thesis. Using evidence from different reputable sources helps draw in the reader and shows them the widespread effects of the web. Carr states that one of the articles he gained information from said, “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense”(94). The way we read now is considered as "skimming through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins”. Usually when people read on the Internet, they do not spend the time to read the entire article, and it is seen that people skip from text to text, focus getting lost quickly.

Consistently there is some new innovative progression advancing into the world trying to make life simpler for individuals. In the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", writer Nicholas Carr clarifies his contemplations on how he trusts the web is risking making individuals loaded with simulated information. Carr starts by clarifying how he feels that the web is bringing on his center issues, how he can never again be totally submerged in a book, and the motivation behind why he gets restless while perusing. He then goes ahead to discuss how his life is encompassed by the web and how that is the fault for the issues he has towards not having the capacity to stay associated with a content; however, in the meantime says how and why the web has been a

Carr starts at his paper in a first point of view. He expresses his feelings that the internet is changing his own personal thinking. This man is an author, he's born to read and even he says that he's having problems because he can no longer read anymore. Carr says that “the web has been a godsend” (Carr), but he also explained it's not only a

Familydoctor.org is a website that offers information on a health related topics and wellness. This website has a domain of .org which means it is operated by an organization. The main purpose of this website is to provide families with information on health related topics and offer wellness information that will benefit all members of the family. This website was chosen based on the fact that many people have families. Anyone who is interested in any health topics and/or wellness can find this site by searching in various search engines, such as Google or yahoo, by typing into the search bar family health or whatever health

In Carrs article he discusses the way that the Internet gives us a false sense of knowledge. When we want to know about something we Google it. We find the article title that is closest to what we are searching for and we click it. In our everlasting quest to be know-it-alls we skim and skim or look for bold words and sentences until we feel that the information we have now obtained is suffice and we are considered knowledgeable about the topic. Although we feel this way, this “knowledge” is usually based off of two or three sentences that are compact and straight to the point.

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)

Moreover, many people are mistaken that they trust the internet, when really they can’t. They are not aware of the disadvantages of relying on the