The Impact Of Internet On The Internet

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).

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

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.

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)

In the article “Age of Revolution: Wikipedia: Ok to use?” by Godwin Carter (2015) has written that is the Wikipedia website reasursable to take information from it or not. A lot of internet users are getting to know that they have been working on the Wikipedia to take information from because it has the newest version of the articles or the researches of their articles. Although, this website have massive potential complication is that anyone has been able to editing the information from other sources and see how much the mistakes are made by the non-professional people. Because that anybody should use it carefully and not just to takes any unreliable sources and needs to be focused in the articles which have written by the person who is

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.

In the BBC article. “Should we trust the wisdom of crowds?”, Castella, T.d (2010,July 5) gave several examples on how the internet become a big part in many of the extraordinary crowdsourcing projects. One of the major things they talk about in this article is Wikipedia.

Denis Diderot, the author of the Encyclopedie, once stated, “There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge... observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.” By taking on the the massive project of the Encyclopédie, he reflected on the tons of facts during his time and bound them together so that others could reflect and experiment. Today we use an expansion of the Encyclopédie called Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the first response to most people’s curiosity, is a digital Encyclopedia that houses information on almost every topic known to man. Part of it’s importance comes from that fact that anyone with internet access can better themselves in anything that interests them, for free. The other half of it’s

In this reading the authors explain how Wikipedia is a user driven knowledge application, where people discuss and collaborate their knowledge and work on a specific topic. The writing explains how Wikipedia is very open and simplistic, the user can easily update a page without any prior technical or programming knowledge. Both from the client’s perspective and server side, the user only needs a conventional browser to access the pages. The authors continue by explaining the impacts of collaborative research on the Wikipedia pages. As different people upload their knowledge and edit the pages the writing style and structure changes throughout, ‘the text as a unit has the traces of all authors’. Additionally, the way in which authors interact with one another on the Wiki pages allows for an area of action, which makes an interactive happening of knowledge construction possible.

"While the line 'according to Wikipedia' pops up occasionally in news stories, it's relatively rare to see the user-created online encyclopedia cited as a source. But some journalists find it very valuable as a road map to troves of valuable information."

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