For years, we've been told not to use Wikipedia because it is chock-full of false or misleading information. Anything found on the site cannot be taken for granted. However, Dunkel's article "Word War III" challenged that opinion. Wikipedia does, in fact, have a very complex system that holds up its integrity. I personally believe after reading this article that Wikipedia, when used in moderation, can be a very reliable source of information. The user just has to be wary of what good info is and what isn't. As long as the reader can tell that the entry is unbiased, and that the information is not ridiculous, the information can be trusted. In fact, there have been several occurrences where I’ve been looking for a certain piece of information, and Wikipedia was the only place I was able to find it. The vast majority of Wikipedia is correct, and what is incorrect is very quickly and efficiently controlled. There are so many administrators and other integrity conscience Wikipediers that most false and/or biased information is corrected within minutes. The fact that pages can also be locked down also shows how considerate the administrators of Wikipedia are of the integrity of information. For those, that just have to put their opinion in, Wikipedia provides a discussion board, where users are free to post any opinions they have, no matter how ridiculous their biases can be. Wikipedia is also an amazing research tool. At the bottom of every page, credible sources are cite, and they can be used to see the original information found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be 100% trusted on everything, but it shouldn't be taken out of the game. It is the only source in the world that can be updated or revised by anyone in the whole world at anytime. Readers just have to use caution, and know how to pick out false information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with what you said. Wikipedia IS a good website, but it needs to have some regulations. You brought up a good point about how the administrators do lockdown articles that they find mistakes and make corrections. I would have liked to see your opinion on Ahmadinejad's article though. I can not believe it sparked up so much controversy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that regulations should be made on Wikipedia. There have been so many times that I have wanted to cite my information directly from Wikipedia but simply couldn't because my teachers deemed it a rule not to. This doesn't mean that we can't use Wikipedia though. Reading cautiously and recognizing false information is the key to using WIkipedia correctly until some regulations are made.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading your post, I was set on if an entry could cause this much controversy, then Wikipedia could definitely not be trusted, but you sort of made me agree with you. The administrators and mediations do make the information a little more credible. I also think you should of expressed your opinion on Ahmadinejad's profile more, but this is a great blog post.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Wikipedia. For instance, when you said Wikipedia is fine "when used in moderation", I definitely agree with you. I think it's good you mentioned that Wikipedia has a lot of administrators who make sure articles have correct information. It's important to realize that there is some incorrect information on Wikipedia, but also that not all of the information on Wikipedia is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you said in your last sentence. As readers we have our own responsibility of believing what is correct and false. We can't just believe everything we hear. We need to challenge it in order to find out the truth sometimes.
ReplyDelete