Pros And Cons Of 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.

“Questioning Wikipedia” is an excellent series of articles written by author Nick Carr. Carr parses through some of the critical issues facing the website today. The most interesting subject Carr delves into is the debate between “inclusionists” and “deletionists” currently taking place among users of the site. Those who are “inclusionist” believe Wikipedia should publish a wide variety of articles, from pieces on Ernest Hemingway to pieces on cartoon characters from the 1950s. These users do not believe some knowledge is more important than other knowledge. To some individuals, cartoons from past generations are more important than famous American authors. To other people, famous American authors are more important. The value of the content

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.

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

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

From websites dedicating their server space to unveiling government conspiracies to those comparing the benefits of different fruits, the Internet is host to many different ideas. The Internet permeates academics as there are websites devoted to making money off of desperate students by writing essays for them. In The Shadow Scholar: How I Made a Living Helping College Kids Cheat, Dave Tomar believes that professors feel threatened by our perpetually evolving relationship with information and obstruct students' access to outside material in order to assure their future as controllers of knowledge. However, I believe that professors are purposefully preventing students from accessing knowledge for more benign reasons; unlike Tomar's assessment

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.

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

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)

Seigenthaler explains to his readers why websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information. He also wants to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. People don’t need any expertise or knowledge to post any kind of information. The author also thinks that some individuals may post false information out of malice. He adopts an angry and frustrated tone in his entire article. This can be seen in his use of the words “sick mind,” “mind-blogging,” “toxic sentences,” “poison- pen intellects,” “irresponsible.” Seigenthaler assumes his readers are unaware of Wikipedia is an unreliable source. In order to appeal

The Wikipedia-Rorschach controversy has stirred up some debate within the field especially with regards to coaching and exposure of the Rorschach test. For this particular article, the authors examine the websites that discuss the Rorschach test and the Internet users’ reaction to the media coverage (Lindsey et al., 2015). Two studies were conducted to examine the topic and the authors found some interesting findings. In the first study, the authors researched Rorschach related information through a search engine and examined each of the websites to see the test security. Based on the first study, about 44% of the websites they encountered did not have any level of threat to the test security, which could possibly mean that there was very little

“Imagine a world without free knowledge.” That was the quote on Wikipedia’s front page on Wednesday, January 18th. . The information-hosting online encyclopedia shut down all of the articles and information on the website, presenting only a black screen and a stark situation to the world for a full twenty-four hours. Why would Wikipedia, an online giant, shut down their website? The consequences are huge, a loss of much-solicited donations to the company and advertising money. The answer is simple. What Wikipedia is trying to do is raise awareness about two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, or SOPA and PIPA (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act”). Soon after Wikipedia, other websites joined in the

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)

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