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.
Wikipedia has existed since January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written and edited by volunteers. Murley states that as of March 2008, Wikipedia contained more than nine million articles, of which two million were in English. More than 75,000 contributors write in more than 250 languages. (2010, p. 594) However, any one can edit an existing article by clicking on the edit tab found at the top of an article. Only anonymous registered users add new articles. These articles must meet Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. All references must be verifiable and the tone must be neutral. If the article does not meet all of the criteria, Wikipedia’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
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
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).
While advances in technology can be beneficial, the growing need to have answers at our fingertips has contributed to issues with the credibility of websites. The internet is bursting with information that can be obtained through search engines or databases. However, problems arise when it comes to determining the accuracy behind the content obtained because some of
Is Wikipedia credible or not credible? Wikipedia is commonly known for anyone to publish their own opinions and it may not be very reliable. However, Wikipedia can seem useful but with the info not being credible can mess up the students research if they only use Wikipedia. Casper Grathwohl thinks the opposite though based on his article “Wikipedia Comes of Age” a chronicle of the higher education. He states that students are using it as a pre information guide before they do further research. Students should use it as a personal information guide. This article makes some good points in mentioning such as research studies, and how Wikipedia should be used as a formal research tool. This type of argument is determined as a classical argument. This would be very helpful in books explaining why Wikipedia should be a formal research tool for students. This explains that anyone can use it to get brief knowledge but should rely on other and more reliable sources. The article “Wikipedia Comes of age” by Casper Grathwohl should be in a textbook because, he states how it can help with information on the topic you are researching but not to use it as a reliable one and only source.
The biggest forms of information given to you through using the internet would include blogs, podcasts, and videos. The sources I use to evaluate when doing research on the internet is authenticated speaker, speaker qualified, authority, other found credible sources, accuracy, last revision, and it’s current these are some factor I could think of. The topic I chose has credible sources and also reliability sources that are already evaluated and uploaded on podcast, blog, and video.
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
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.
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
First of all, all mistakes made by one editor can be fixed by another. As Andrea R. Culver, in a comment on “Yes, Wikipedia Can be a Reliable Source,” said, “…If person A knows more about Martin Luther’s early years but not his later ones, and person B knows about the later years but not his early years, they can both edit the article and make it more complete… and if there are serious errors that person A made, persons B,C,D, and E might just change and edit them.” (Comment on “Yes, Wikipedia Can Be a Reliable Source”, 2012) In addition, most print articles are updated no more than once a year, while Wikipedia articles can be updated many times per hour and few go unchanged for more than a year. Wikipedia definitely has a few advantages already mentioned, but this is just the
The number one major criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a creditable source of information. Wikipedia allows for laypersons, in addition to their staff editors, to contribute to the information within the websites database. While the contributors may very well be reliable their identity is often unknown; leaving the researcher unable to verify their contribution and sort out any personal bias from the writer. Wikipedia’s own website states that its not creditable because “anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed.” (Wikipedia: DGG, 2007)
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
Research in the library labs were very helpful and informative in spotting web sites that were biased and did not have creditable information. Many people make web sites that are not credible and it is always good to select scholarly sources when writing research papers for school. When one researches a subject, you should always keep good records. I am a disorganized person, and lose