...are doing a research for general information or they are trying to find a fact about something? The answer for that is pretty obvious: Wikipedia. For years, many of the educators have warned students not to use or trust wikipedia as a reliable source. However, students find information on Wikipedia useful and correct compared to a textbook. Therefore, WIkipedia is a reliable and appropriate source for research because Wikipedia articles are a combination of different reliable sources and authors can write about the topic that they are most qualified to do so. Wikipedia is absolutely a good starting point for research and it directs student to other reliable sources. Wikipedia is a website that gathers a lot of information from other reliable sources. Additionally, the huge amount of information can train students’ literacy skills, especially when they are reading a difficult articles. On Wikipedia, most of the academic articles have footnotes or references at the bottom of the article. The footnotes list all the sources that the information came from. Most of these resources are from reliable academic...
Words: 576 - Pages: 3
...Is Wikipedia Really A Reliable Source? Is Wikipedia Really A Reliable Source? The task or writing a research paper or completing a project that requires research can often be daunting and time consuming especially for those who are not in a research field. Because of this, many people will look to find a shortcut through this process. Wikipedia can be considered one of these shortcuts. According to Wikipedia (n.d.), “Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model” (1). Wikipedia undoubtedly provides a more rapid way to research. The site contains 8.2 million articles in 283 different languages (Wikipedia, n.d.). The site is free to use and has very simple, straightforward navigation. If one were to write out all of the pros of Wikipedia, it would be a very long list, but the question is – is Wikipedia really reliable? Are we sacrificing reliability for shortcuts? Are we giving up quality of information for quantity? The argument for reliability These questions are a part of an ongoing and seemingly not ending (at least not any time soon) debate. According to a debate with classmates, many who are for the reliability of Wikipedia believe it to be as reliable if not more than traditional sources; however, during the debate classmates were found to list pros of the site as opposed to actual reasons that information found on the site could be deemed reliable. Some classmates pointed out that...
Words: 1117 - Pages: 5
...Wikipedia and its Credibility Wikipedia and its Credibility 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 say that one can trust Wikipedia just because it exists. Issues with “Vandalism” In 2003 IBM researches conducted a study to find how rapidly the editors remove the false information in the articles of Wikipedia and discovered that “vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly-so quickly that most users will never see its affects” and that Wikipedia had “surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities” (IBM, 2003, para. 3). This statement is not always true. Waldman (2004) tells the following story to disprove the above point: one blogger who goes under the name of Frozen North, made a point of deliberately making a number of minor errors on a number of entries at the start of September. He made five changes and it took at least 20 hours...
Words: 1136 - Pages: 5
...Arguments For and Against Wikipedia as a Valid Research Resource What constitutes a valid resource for academic research? According to the University of Colorado Boulder, there are three main items to look at in the evaluation of a source. These three items are credibility, validity, and relevance (Colorado, n.d.). The credibility of the author is the first step in determining whether or not to use a given source. You must think about the author as a scholar and determine what makes them qualified to be writing this article or paper. Some things to look at are formal education, history of research on the topic at hand, as well as any other experience with the topic such as the author’s career (Colorado, n.d.). The next step in determining the quality of a research source is to look at the validity of research contained in the article or paper. You may want to look at the position the author takes: is it biased to one side or the other, or is it written objectively to give both sides a fair argument? You can also ask yourself: is the argument made based on research rather than the author’s own experiences? One of the most important things to take note of is whether or not the information is cited (Colorado, n.d.). Just because an article is written well does not mean that it contains correct information. A well-written article also does not mean it is a valid source for research purposes. The third and final step in the evaluation of a research source is to look at whether...
Words: 1417 - Pages: 6
...is Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia.......” "Wikipedia:general Disclaimer" (2011) So what about Wikipedia does or does not make it a credible source. Below I will discuss the debate outcomes, the arguments between both sides, and my reasoning for choosing the against side. An argument was developed based on debate outcomes Based on the debate outcomes from the group, there were many good points in reasoning why Wikipedia is or is not a credible source. The group came up with approximately 26 points that were either against or for Wikipedia being a credible source. The debate was very active leaving everyone a good foundation on what each person thought about the topic. The four steps for presenting arguments fairly were used to develop the argument Each person has their opinion on what they feel about the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia. Some believed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can create an account and update information whereas others may think that to be a positive aspect. They feel because anyone can create an account, this gives the opportunity for groups to come together (especially those that are very knowledgeable) and this in turn will develop a common resource of knowledge to be credible. Some will argue that Wikipedia is not reliable because it is not peered reviewed, but then some would say that Wikipedia is backed up with references at the end of the page which links to reliable information...
Words: 312 - Pages: 2
...Writing an Argument; Wikipedia Jesus Manuel Acosta-Vargas University of Phoenix MGT/521 Management Prof. Elsie Jimenez-Galarza Writing an Argument Today in this century that “we” live, must student like surfing in the Internet to find his resources. The Internet as of the present time contains a several encyclopedias online and research’s websites of all kinds. Some of these types of research’s websites are reliable in some points, some are credible investigations some not, some are valid point of view, and other websites are not developing any of these criteria and lack bias. I am going to writing an argument about the infamous Wikipedia online encyclopedia and his credibility in the web. Wikipedia from scratch we have to make some question; have a valid point of view? Have some credible sources? Is reliable source of information and good research to an essay? In addition to that i have to develop an argument based upon are the outcomes about the debate pro Wikipedia and against Wikipedia. And to support all the argument against Wikipedia, I going to identifying each criterion used to analyze and evaluate all the credibility sources. Some research demonstrates that Wikipedia’s articles that lack biases. Some articles are lack of ideas and neutral point of view too. Head and Eisenberg (2010) write that Wikipedia is a source that is used in 85% of the work course of university students and in 91% of related searches problems...
Words: 946 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia that many rely on as a source for information. However, there are others that question whether the encyclopedia can be cited as a valid and credible source. This argument is based on Learning Team C’s debate on whether Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for information. The viewpoints from both sides will be examined and a conclusion will be drawn as to why Wikipedia is not a credible and valid source for information. Credible According to Lizz Shepherd, a freelance writer, Wikipedia has one of the best Google page ranks of any site in the world and is in the top 10 of Alexa. Regardless of what you search for, the Wikipedia entry is probably in the top three results for that topic. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows its users to edit and remove content from any page. Because Wikipedia allows its users to change information brings frequent questions about the validity of the information on its pages. The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the few sources that most people agree on for reliable, accurate information. Encyclopedia Britannica is considered the standard for finding accurate information. In an attempt to compare accuracy, the journal Nature ran a large-scale test of the information in Wikipedia entries versus the same entries in Encyclopedia Britannica (Shepherd, 2010). Nature’s results of the test revealed that both sources had numerous errors, Wikipedia, 2.86% and Encyclopedia Britannica...
Words: 616 - Pages: 3
...Since the inception of Wikipedia, the ongoing debate about whether it is a reliable source or not has plague academia. Still to this day many instructors have to make the conscious decision on whether or not they will permit it within their course. Cheryl Miller Maddox wrote, “The history department at Middlebury College banned students from citing Wikipedia articles in their papers and exams” (Jeffe Maehre, 2009, p. 1). This prompted a highly contested debate. The reason the idea is shared that Wikipedia should be ban from school is because of the fact it pollutes the mind. Today many children just are taking it as the gospel. Many educators fear that with the wealth of erroneous information Wikipedia possesses could be dangerous in the development of students’ education. Don Wyatt, chair of the department of history at Middlebury College stated, “As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation. 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” (Scott Jaschik, 2007, p. 1). This line of thinking was shared by multiple schools across the country. Many educators believe that the art of researching is a valuable tool to pass along to students. When a student has the knowledge of exploring many sources to find a fact is something that could translate seamlessly into the world of business. For example, a lawyer has to muddle through...
Words: 608 - Pages: 3
...use an Internet source in an academic paper. Use the following guidelines when searching Internet sources for information to use in an academic paper: * Use websites that are credible * Use the most current sources possible * Use sources accessed through a university library These elements are discussed in detail below. Questions to Determine Internet Reliability What is the extension? The Web site address usually includes “www” followed by a period (called a dot), followed by an extension name (also called a domain name). The reliability of a website can frequently be determined by the domain or extension name. The most reliable extensions include the following: .edu: a school or other educational institution site .gov: a government site .mil: a military site Three other common extensions may or may not be reliable. Further investigation is needed to determine the reliability of websites with these extensions. .org: a noncommercial site that is used for nonprofit organizations, foundations, cultural institutions, and other...
Words: 920 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia started as Nupedia in 2000 and became Wikipedia in January 2001. Wikipedia is known as the free, user complied, open edited encyclopedia written by people who have not done extensive research on a subject. As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online reader produced encyclopedia. Plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries and some have discouraged or tried to ban students from using it. Wikipedia has been the subject of considerable debate for some time now. Several people think the site is not quotable, while others argue that it is. Many teachers do not accept Wikipedia pages as a source of information because any one can add or remove information from such pages. Also, this online encyclopedia does not always cite sources for its articles. Plus it is difficult to find the credentials of the authors. A huge part of credibility is attributed to a sources currency, indicating how recent a certain source has been updated. Wikipedia’s credibility lies within its immediate opportunity to alter, and update a specific topic. One may argue the fact that almost anyone can be an editor of this reference site, which allows opportunity to diminish the validity of certain information. However, once an editor posts information on a topic, the information is examined and removed or edited. With thousands of pages being edited daily, how is it possible...
Words: 725 - Pages: 3
...Essay Plan Introduction: Thesis: Wikipedia is not a creditable source of information for tertiary-level writing. Body Paragraph 1: * Meaning of Wikipedia * Misleading readers * Vandalism * Reference Gorman Body Paragraph 2: * Academics publishing work * Editing * Reference Lu and Askin Body Paragraph 3: * Counter argument * Credibility * Reference Lu and Askin AND Crovitz and Smoot Conclusion: Convenient but not accurate! The purpose of this essay is to provide insight as to why Wikipedia is not a creditable source of information for tertiary-level writing. Tertiary-level writing involves the use of valid reference sources to show supporting evidence. Anyone can contribute anonymously and edit pages in the non-profit internet encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, automatically reducing the credibility of the popular website. Wikipedia is known as the free encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia in Gorman’s opinion (2007, p. 273) is ‘created by experts and monitored by professional editors who themselves are often subject experts’ and believes that Wikipedia should be recognised for what it is, ‘opinions untested by experts’. Wikipedia has a large amount of worldwide anonymous volunteers that monitor, and then clean up articles. Professionals may not want to give out their knowledge for free and therefore posts that are incorrect will never be corrected by the appropriate person. On the other hand, people who claim...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...November 2, 2015 Yay or Nay The mission of Wikipedia was to design it to be used as a free encyclopedia and research tool in which readers could obtain verifiable information. Wikipedia has been questioned by many individuals concerning its creditability. It is open to a large contributor base allowing anyone to edit and write anything. Many use information from Wikipedia to do research without second guessing or even thinking that the information being obtained may actually be false. “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start; they may contain false or debatable information” (Wikipedia: Using Wikipedia as a research tool). Determining whether Wikipedia is good or bad as far as being able to be used as a source of credit worthy information is kind of hard to figure out. Believing that the pros of Wikipedia outweighs the cons, it is still hard to find a balance. When you search for something on the internet, the first link to direct your search is a link involving Wikipedia which some would consider a good sign. Wikipedia is a good source to read when you absolutely have no knowledge about what you are researching. Since entries can be made by anyone, the diversity of different subjects could be beneficial. You could learn how one subject could become many due to the differences in cultural and personal opinions. “Wikipedia takes information from other reliable websites and puts it onto one portal. Each piece of information...
Words: 833 - Pages: 4
...years it has endured great success. In this assignment, I will use a reliable source and an unreliable source to explain the key ingredient that makes this product work so well, this ingredient is melamine foam. Melamine foam is manufactured in Germany and is used as an insulation for pipes and ductwork. Melamine foam is also used as soundproof for studios and auditoriums. Melamine foam isn’t 100% fire proof, but has a very low smoke and fire properties, thus making it a non-hazardous material. I chose this topic as I have small children who like to use my walls as their canvas. They like to use crayons, pens, pencils mostly for their work. If their art work is of something that they were really proud of, I will take a picture of their work with them standing next to it so we can reflect back on that moment. However, if it’s just scribble, well, then this is where the magic eraser comes in handy. I can wipe the wall clean and one could never tell that my small children performed any kind of art work on the wall. With that, the first resource I chose on the magic eraser and the material melamine foam that its made of was from of course Wikipedia. I like to use Wikipedia for a quick reference source, however for academics purpose, is unreliable. Anyone can edit the information in Wikipedia without knowing the true facts on a topic, thus making its source unreliable. For my next source, my reliable source, comes from the website AsianGlory, which is a company out of Hong...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...Wikipedia created in 2001 tagged the free encyclopedia is a multilingual web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model written collaboratively by a largely anonymous internet volunteers who write without pay. (Wikipedia:About, 2012) Wikipedia has at least 4.8 billion visitors annually, over 85,000 active contributors working on over 21 million articles in 280 languages. (Wikipedia:About, 2012). As a result of this open model, Wikipedia has emerged as one of the largest repository for information besides the encyclopedia Britannica, but does the high number of contributors and volume of information guarantee the credibility of the authors and validity of the information in the Wikipedia encyclopedia? This is one challenge that the owners of Wikipedia will have to contend with for a long era. Credibility strengthens a research work (Spatt, 2011, p. 347) and greatly depends on the author’s qualification (Spatt, 2011, p. 348), regrettably, Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs because they have more free time on their hands and are make rapid changes in response to current [ (Wikipedia:About, 2012) ] events rather than people with relevant educational background and professional experience. The fact that anonymous contributions are allowed on Wikipedia is another source of concern around its credibility and when those with expert credentials make contributions they are given no additional weight which could have assisted the users to judge the...
Words: 653 - Pages: 3
...Wikipedia is the largest and most heavily used online encyclopedia in the 21st century. In this essay I will discuss the impact of Wikipedia as a primary source of information, and the effects this has on a fragmented audience. When used as a research tool, user generated content within Wikipedia can have a negative impact on the academic community. The nature of Wikipedia represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the reader and the publisher. Through illustrating the ease to which Wikipedia offers this information transfer and how this constantly changing state impacts on culture and creative identity and place, I will expose the fraudulent nature of this over exhausted resource. The Hawaiian word for quick, Wiki Wiki is the basis for the name Wikipedia. Every article has an edit capacity, which allows any user, to add or delete content on any page. This Shortens the time frame needed to create, edit and publish content, making it the preferred tool for many people worldwide seeking answers and a path for basic research. Unfortunately it is also interpreted by some, as an authoritive source of information. However there is no gate keeping function in the program to ensure the authenticity of the information which is contributed. In defence, the functionality of the program which allows it to be constantly updated allows quicker access to many audiences and could be argued that it is a good way to stay informed and in touch with current issues. Although Wikipedia...
Words: 1445 - Pages: 6
