Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite Or Rely On Wikipedia

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.

Majority of students who enroll in history classes partake in analyzing and gaining knowledge from secondary sources. Secondary sources are second hand accounts after an event has occurred. In particular, there are two secondary sources that students utilize and they are lectures and Wikipedia. Despite being secondary sources, there should be careful consideration when analyzing them. Any material that is taught, displayed, or portrayed in lecture are far more reliable than what is presented in Wikipedia. In an academic setting, it is better to always reference and use information from what was taught in lecture than from Wikipedia. It is not a bad resource to use. In fact, Wikipedia is a type of source that provides information for a variety of things that is accessible via the Internet. However, cautionary actions should take place since Wikipedia is a database that can is written or changed practically by anyone. Since this is the case, there can be instances

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

Pat Galagan, author of Technology and The Interrupted Brain seeks out a professional to explain this. Dan Willingham, professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia states, “Data from the last thirty years leads to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that 's

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

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

According to the United Nations Agency, approximately 3.2 billion people have used the Internet since 2015, which has made a drastic increase since 2000 with there only being 738 million internet users then. That is almost 43% of the world's population that uses the internet. A controversial topic that is commonly being brought up in today's arguments is the use of the internet and how people believe it is becoming such a detriment to our society, because nobody in this generation acknowledges the value of books, or even prefers to use an actual copy such as a paperback. The internet, such as Google, is being classified as lazy or ignorant, but reading a book is labeled as literate or being knowledgeable. Thesis:“Teaching in the #Age Literacy” by Jennifer L. Nelson and “Is Google Making Us stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, both analyze the pros and cons to having the internet and information at our fingertips, how it is affecting the way we read and analyze text and different scientific experiments that have been put to use to decode why we think the way we do now and how to improve our intelligence.

In a research survey it was found that 56% 18-19 year olds possessed low knowledge levels compared to the 22% of 50-64 year olds (Source A). But as suggested by Source B this “reflects not dumbness but choice”. In today’s age it is not about knowing information it is about knowing where to find it. In previous generations the internet was not available and information was not so easily accessible so it was important to memorize information. But with today’s technology all information is a google search away lifting the burden of having to memorize and having to read through pages of books. As “research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes” (Source D). Making choosing not remember information that doesn’t appear valuable a practical choice, because it’s simply not worth the effort. But that doesn’t mean that the modern generation doesn’t research or explore as much as the parental generations. In fact to the internet allows them to research areas of interest or simply “geek out”, where there motivated and self-directly learn and explore about a certain topic or interest (Source C). Where they receive feedback and earn respect form peers without any borders. With outcomes unparalleled to the classroom setting. In short remembering facts has become impractical, but the generation passionately use the internet to explore their

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.

Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a

First as an example, take North The Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

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.

Hello Everyone, 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

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) Even if the public likes it, though, for the most

Wikipedia and its Credibility Wikipedia and its Credibility 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