Wikipedi Is It The Best Source For Truth?

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).

Launched on 15 January 2001, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses the web platform for online users to access. Boasting with over 26 million pieces of writing in 285 languages, Wikipedia has transformed to be a giant in the field of search engines optimization technology. The open source concept that it rides have made it cheap to access and a better choice for many online users. This is especially among the users who find it cumbersome to follow prolonged registration processes to access information on the internet. Any search term queried on the Google™ home page search engine will definitely give a hit from the Wikipedia site, and if not present, a prompt will request the user to create a page for such a term. In this way,

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

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.

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

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.

|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 |

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.

Discussions between users and editors also take place to ensure the quality and correct information is being published. Wikipedia does realize that work does get by them from time to time and admits that some of the work is complete nonsense. They do not want their work to be used for crucial information but rather to familiarize oneself with a new topic. New ways of governing the website are constantly being explored to improve the overall quality of the work being shared. Ultimately it is the users responsibility to double check information with other sources when needing to find out and use significant information. It has been a very helpful tool throughout the years to find information quickly and is generally a dependable way of finding out new

But like everything else this can also have it’s draw backs. Because there is so much information out there that is not credible, the problem is how do we know which one is and which one is not. I am glad that I have found out that the wikipedia site is not a reliable source because this is one of the first ones that pops up after we input what we want to find out. This

Wikipedia is ranked first in all search engines; so many people go with the first answer, result that pops up. With using Wikipedia anyone can go in and change what someone has already posted, and it allows you to delete or disallow comments. Below are a few quotations on how Wikipedia was use in the wrong way. According to the Financial Post, “when Connelly was through editing, The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of global warming orthodoxy. Connelly has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but some believes he still continue to post (Moran).”

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