The Use of Wikipedia As a Source for Journalists and Students

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.

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.

Newspapers and other forms of news are very vital communication methods in the world today. The goal of news is to sell us their ideas by being biased and talking about how their idea is best. News can give us biased information although, the viewer could do further research on the

Though journalists main goal is to expose the whole truth, to do this they must be open on their methods of acquiring information. With the use of transparency in news articles, the journalists do just this. One major point in the

The article "Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia In My Class" is based on writer Neil L. Waters’s belief that the website Wikipedia.com should not be utilized as a academic research source in the article Waters describes what he finds are the strengths and weaknesses of the site. He argues the open source structure of the website is the best and worst feature of Wikipedia. Water states “Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source.” His reasoning behind this quote is that any individual can edit the articles and provide inaccurate information that may later be used in an academic paper, which he provided an example of. The author also goes on to explain his role in a policy adopted by the university he worked

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.

The media has been adversely affected by the explosion of information sources. It has become a tedious and cumbersome endeavor to accurately locate information sources that can stand to even the slightest bit of scrutinizing. For those who attempt to report the truth, they continue to find it

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

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)

Wikipedia counts 75,000 editors who check the articles and their content to make sure that the information is valid and reliable. According to Schaffer (2009), the journal Nature conducted a study in 2005 and proved that Wikipedia is just as valid as any other encyclopedia, including Britannica, keeping in mind that errors and vandalism can occur to any of them (para. 2).

The overview of the subject matter is that the big worry is that quality will decline Journalists are employed to check their facts and they get checked in turn by editors who question the reliability of their sources; we trust the paper’s brand not the individual journalist. Social media could be reliable, but how would we know? This is equally true then it comes to bias. But the fact of the matter is journalism is more credible and if we lose credibility in the information we get everything could fall for speculation. The authors’ thesis is we should not stand for the decline of journalism as a profession but support our right to have valuable information