Essay about Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source

Proponents of Wikipedia might suggest that amateurs often make important contributions to fields outside of their profession. Astronomers, Bird watchers and, Historians are often outshined by discoveries made by Amateurs. However once the discovery is made it is the professionals who then validate and confirm that information something that doesn’t happen on Wikipedia. The might also reference the unofficial policy of citing original sources as a way of validating the information. “Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research”(Logan, D.W. p1)

In the article, Purdy talks about how Wikipedia’s articles are constantly changing, which makes Wikipedia hard to cited. If one was to cited something from Wikipedia’s information could have changed since that

“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.

Wikipedia is a commonly used site when people are surfing the web. The accuracy of the information on the Wikipedia site is often questioned because anyone with access to the Internet can make changes to Wikipedia’s articles by either contributing anonymously, or with their real identity if they would like. To test Wikipedia’s accuracy of information I have chosen to research Spina Bifida and compare Wikipedia’s information on this topic with multiple other sources that are credible.

Are you at an age where you can remember a time before the internet, where you would have to search through stacks of books or encyclopedias to find the information that you want? Some of you may be thinking “Yes, thank god for google!” and others may be thinking “Oh, the horror! I can’t imagine surviving without it!”. But there are the few that reminisce about the time when you couldn’t find whatever information you were looking for in a matter of minutes. Unlike many, Tim Kreider looks back on the times before the internet with fondness, and thinks that our easy access to information has had some negative side effects. While Kreider raises some interesting and valid points in his article, “In Praise of Not Knowing” there are still some

In the article “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production,” author Danah Boyd writes about how educators are against using Wikipedia as a quality source. She goes into detail about how most students are told to stay clear of the site at all cost because their teachers think it is misleading and inaccurate. On the contrary, Boyd mentions that analysis have shown Wikipedia’s content as creditable as, if not more reliable than, traditional resources. She also writes about some of the sites features that people don’t know about like there discussion boards. Wikipedia has had time to mature over the years and should be seen as a reliable and should be used in schools.

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

Subjects have the right to have factually incorrect information corrected (note: this does not extend to matters of opinion)

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

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.

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

In “Reading Less and More When Evaluating Digital Information”, Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew evaluate the credibility of digital information using an experiment. In this experiment, they test historians, students, and fact checkers. The participants are given “a set of six online tasks that took approximately 45 minutes to complete.” (6) They are allowed to use any additional resources or sites to justify if the site is reliable or not.

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.

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. It contains millions of articles and depends mainly on volunteers and contributors to ensure that information are up to date. This is an open source that anyone can add and edit articles; so information may not always be accurate. It is the quickest and easier way to gain general knowledge on a specific topic. An encyclopedia is generally not a good source of reference in a paper; rather it can be a starting point in research the topic. The issue of reliability and credibility arises because of lack of credentials of editors, including biased view in content, articles are not peer-reviewed before publishing, source cited may be invalid,

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