What Is Wikipedia Worthy?

According to the article, “Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia” written by Mark E. Moran, an Irish student by the name of Shane Fitzgerald posted a fake quotation on a Wikipedia article about a deceased French composer named Maurice Jarre. Later, Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use websites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. This proves that, while the person behind the screen publishing this article may know it is false, it can appear just as trustworthy as any other fact in the article. It also says in the article “Warming Up to the Culture of Wikipedia” by Noam Cohen, “...many curators are suspicious of a site where anyone can create and edit an article, and where the assertions of expertise are greeted with skepticism or, at best, a shrug.” This shows that it is not only some schools that may fear inaccurate evidence, but that museums are also skeptical of websites like

|Wikipedia |Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is an online encyclopedia where that |It is not a validity source. The web site has no peer review and the information can |

To be reliable means to be dependable. For a website to be reliable, it needs to present facts or issues in an unbiased manner; we need to be able to depend on the information found on the site. Some websites are better at that than others. Martin Luther King, Jr.: A True Historical Examination looks like a reliable resource for students researching Martin Luther King, Jr., but the site lacks the objectivity of a similar site, the Seattle Times’ website, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, making it unreliable.

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

Today, it is very easy to believe anything seen on the internet. With numerous resources available instantaneously, it is impossible to know which ones are misleading, and which ones are legitimate. In the end, it all comes down to being able to distinguish a fake source, from a real source.

This source represents no real perspective or opinion as it is completely factual. Although, it is very useful as it sets dates to events relevant to the

The sources of the Wikipedia article are obviously one of the most important things that we check in order to make sure that the information the article has is reliable. As I was looking through the sources, I happened to see some links to websites that when clicked on, they didn’t arrive to any type of website or it would send me to a page that would say,” this page no longer exists.” This is obviously an issue due to the fact it is possible that the information from the article is old and no longer valid. Due to this, I came to the conclusion that some of the sources on the Wikipedia article are no longer acceptable and should be updated. If I used Wikipedia for my neighborhood project, there

Proponents of Wikipedia might suggest that amateurs often make important contributions to fields outside of their profession. Astronomers, Bird watchers and, Historians are often outshined by discoveries made by Amateurs. However once the discovery is made it is the professionals who then validate and confirm that information something that doesn’t happen on Wikipedia. The might also reference the unofficial policy of citing original sources as a way of validating the information. “Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research”(Logan, D.W. p1)

Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that draws millions to the site every month. Wikipedia includes millions of articles on a wide range of subjects. Marketing experts state that Wikipedia is a great way to establish a business and gain credibility online. Google certainly agrees with that idea. Type a subject into the search box on the search engine. The odds are that a few of the top sites in the search are Wikipedia based. Clearly, writing business focused articles is a good marketing strategy. Just about all the articles appearing on the site are in the top search engine results. However, it is time to debunk a few of those ripe Wikipedia myths, to get started.

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).

Many people claim that information on online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia may be inaccurate because the contributors are anonymous (Seigenthaler). Many anonymous writers may lack the required academic background or related experience to write credible articles. Articles that are written by non-academic writers may contain factual errors or unverified information. Moreover, articles that are edited by unprofessional editors may not present the intended ideas clearly or the articles may not to be structured properly. Furthermore, the free editing also reduces the information accuracy. Because any user can edit content, some articles may not hold a neutral point of view. Articles may contain the author's personal political beliefs, religious beliefs and bias. Also, because every user can edit content, hackers and amoral users may use this opportunity to create false information to deceive people. Compared with the online encyclopedia, the accuracy of traditional printed encyclopedia seems to be much higher. For example, the articles in the encyclopedia Britannica "were written by a staff of about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 expert contributors" (Simonson). Not everyone has the chance to write on the traditional printed encyclopedia; hence, the information on it is much more

Nowadays, a page is checked several times a day. For example, the article on London was last checked on the ninth of March at 14.12, while right now it is the ninth of March 18.15 (“London” par 13). Additionally, a Wikipedia page can be put under Protection Mode, preventing somebody to add inaccurate information (“Wikipedia: Protection” par 1). There are four different kinds of protection, each one to a different degree: full protection, semi-protection, creation protection, and move protection (“Wikipedia: Protection” par 1). Moreover, according to the BBC, a survey of the British journal Nature showed that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Wikipedia survives” par 1). In the survey, scientific entries on Wikipedia as well as the Encyclopaedia Britannica were anonymously checked on errors by peer reviewers. In each encyclopaedia the reviewers found four errors, so Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica are evenly accurate (“Wikipedia survives” par 10).

In the article “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production,” author Danah Boyd writes about how educators are against using Wikipedia as a quality source. She goes into detail about how most students are told to stay clear of the site at all cost because their teachers think it is misleading and inaccurate. On the contrary, Boyd mentions that analysis have shown Wikipedia’s content as creditable as, if not more reliable than, traditional resources. She also writes about some of the sites features that people don’t know about like there discussion boards. Wikipedia has had time to mature over the years and should be seen as a reliable and should be used in schools.

No one really can take or use Wikipedia with any seriousness. The editors can be literally anyone and from any place. The editor could be from any walk of life and share or posses any type of political view. They could be racists or religious fanatics or they could be a conservative or liberal. It does not take much to be an editor for Wikipedia. The editor only must create an account, and they are granted immediate access editing a Wikipedia page of their selection: it really is that simple. There are no venting processes or any procedures gathering editors from any a specific field which would ensure knowledgeable, well-informed or educated editors. In the Sweatt v Painter Wikipedia page, there were roughly about fifty (50) edits since

Wikipedia is the largest free online encyclopedia in the world. Wikipedia provides for people information on every topic that they could possibly need or search for. Nonetheless, people can edit information as easily as they can search corrections and updates without having trouble of plagiarism. Because, a lot of articles can be stolen without knowing the identity of the person who stole it. The argument that made people lose their trust in Wikipedia was when experts started discovering that some informations on the website are either fake or not supported academically. Moreover, Wikipedia does not give criteria for great article to assess its dependability (Stross, 2006). Therefore, Wikipedia responded to those exports by telling them that the information on their website are not based on sources from exports on some subject, but it is taken mostly by the agreement of the majority. Therefore, Wikipedia has the power to change the definition of a reliable source.