Wikipedia as a Credible Source

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)

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

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

Primary sources are more reliable than what someone is telling you what they heard. “Primary Source is the way to go. It goes back in history created by people who lived during that time period. Having access to the records of unrefined artistic, social, scientific and political understanding and accomplishment within the exact period supporting analysis.

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.

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.

In the 21st century, credible sources are a crucial preliminary element to back up ideas and arguments in the preparation of academic writing and research as well as an opportunity to learn how to communicate in the computerised world. Credible sources play a significant role in academic writing to show the above board demonstration of your academic work (Swinburne Online, n.d.). Many people struggle to evaluate online information and opinions available and it difficult to discern credible online sources (Amsbary & Powell, 2003; Meola, 2004; Metzger, Flanagin, Eyal, et al., 2003; Scholz-Crane, 1998). Returning to study after a long break is hard for me, but using the credible sources will help me academically.

|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 |

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

In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source.

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

A source is the place or resource in which knowledge has been obtained. When looking for sources to use in a research paper you need to be able to determine whether or not a source is reliable and credible. It is important to use reliable and credible sources so that the information you use in a document you are writing is accurate and will not affect you in a negative way, by either getting a bad grade in school or just looking unintelligent to a colleague.

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).