Wikipedia And False Information

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).

“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.

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.

The ultimate reason Marshal Poe does this is to illustrate his views on information sharing and depict the communities role in it. Poe mentions, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.”, in the very beginning of his article to present his view on collaboration within the community. He describes wikipedia as “the most comprehensive repository of human knowledge in human history.” (Poe 349) This serves to contribute to the idea that information sharing lies within both the community and technology, which was also shown by Marshall Poe upon his discussion of the usage of the bottom-up system and cathedral model. Marshall Poe is ultimately stating that when power is given to the public, they will use it to their own advantage and promote true knowledge, as exemplified through his new and improved biography on Wikipedia. Information sharing is contributing to the progress of human

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

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

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

Wikipedia was the jumping off point for our topic. When it came to finding out who Jane Addams was we learned did about how she opens the hull house to help others and how it was helping many children. This site was also helping us get the basis of a research that we could use to find more credible sites and books. It also let us know about the hull house because we didn't even know that it existed so it gave us this whole new thing to research about

Both articles compare because they express the issues with trusting Wikipedia as a resourceful site. They both discuss how unreliable Wikipedia has become over the years. Although Wikipedia may have started as being a reliable source, it has become a freely edited site. Both articles discuss how the site has become a major problem in the classroom. Students have become accustomed to getting all of their research on Wikipedia . By allowing Wikipedia to be an open editing source it has become unreliable . Niel Water discusses how many entries on Wikipedia have incorrect information . If a person is not informed on the topic, they can be easily fooled by false information . For example , the entry about Ogyu Sorai has incorrect facts . He has

The site I chose to write about is Wikipedia.com. I chose Wikipedia.com because many people use the site as a guide for new research avenues, which is at the heart of the internet’s origins. The duality of Wikipedia is that while it may aid users in their research projects the content on the site can be added and edited by almost anyone that views the page. This editing ability can lead to erroneous information being passed on to the researcher as if it were fact. While Wikipedia is a great resource for knowledge and ideas, this information must be taken with a grain of salt.

But what good does it do a student in high school who needs to know the material if all they are going to do is look up the answer and not look up the background knowledge of how it works or why it even makes sense. Sharon Begley states, “Gen Y cares less about knowing information than knowing where to find information...” (Source 2). In other words, our generation is stupid and lazy, we are not willing to educate ourselves instead we are only trying to get the answers for a worksheet and never remeber that information again. When she states that our generation “cares less about knowing information” it emphasizes on how we don’t want to further our education to a level of what past generations had to read to find the answers. In addition, many citizens of this world aren’t writing like we use to, they prefer to type instead. She also mentions that companies are paying for basic writing skills for their employees at around $1.3 billion a year (Source 2). This proves the point of people are not willing to try anymore because the internet does basically everything they need for them. Our future employers should not be paying a ridiculous amount of money just so we will have basic writing skills to

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