The Role Of Unreliable Wikipedia In Schools

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).

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.

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

When looking at each of the articles presented, there are defining factors that allow researchers to determine whether or not it is a scholarly or popular resource. Of the two articles, one can assert that the USA Today Article is a popular source and the article by Baker and Algorta (2016) is a scholarly source. Each of these sources has their advantages and disadvantages due to the stylistic devices employed by the writers. With the help of each article, knowledge of readers and viewers is expanded, and while there are some facets that detract from the quality of the knowledge gained, the readers benefits from the time spent reading.

The Wikipedia article on Robert Smalls is not a reliable source of information. Simply because Wikipedia is a form of online Encyclopedia; and you cannot cite Encyclopedia’s to begin with. That being said, I do not think students or the general user should dismiss the source completely because it does have a lot of valuable information in it. Wikipedia is there as a first step in your research, to inform you and give you a good solid background of information you are looking for before you start your deeper research. Personally, I really enjoy Wikipedia because it helps me look for certain points in my research and it makes it a little bit easier. Some people assume that any website is reliable or that only .Edu, .Gov, and .Org are. Even

In the Article “How Google, Wikipedia Have Changed Our Lives…” Jennifer Maderazo states that, we’ve become so reliant on electronic information resources. Researching then was implying researching involved going through book after book, making copies, highlighting copies then start to write. Researching Now states that everything research is related to the internet and if not in use there is a feeling of being crippled. In the article learning then gives the feeling of how relying on the classroom experience was more helpful for information. In addition, in learning now says that the tolerance level would be the same as the internet attention span. Based on the past lets us know how we didn’t have the resources to just look up a song or the

In both essays on whether or not a dog park should be built in Muscatine, Iowa; both authors make good points. While the first one uses a combination of facts and emotion, the second author mixes some facts and what seems like animosity towards dogs. The first one is a very inviting and interesting article which gives the reader facts as well as connecting on a personal level. The second article seems a little cold and negatively charged.

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.

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.

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

A Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles In this essay I will be comparing two articles taken from local

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