...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
...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
...research or writing academic papers. In fact, credibility is crucial in academia. As you may or may not know, anyone can post information on the Internet. BobJones.com written by Bob Jones might contain information about the Civil War, but how does the reader know that Bob is an expert on the Civil War? Accurately determining the reliability and validity of websites is an essential skill when deciding to 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 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
...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
...standard activity for students Wikipedia has become one of the top visited websites. The online encyclopedia is educational and has viewpoints from various sources. Wikipedia has created a conflict over whether the information published on the site is reliable. How credible is Wikipedia? Critics of Wikipedia point to the site’s universal editorial access as its most egregious fl aw. For many, that no mechanism exists to prevent someone from posting bogus material either intentionally or through ignorance dooms Wikipedia as a credible and useful information source. Wikipedia is more like a library (or like the World Wide Web itself) than like a typical reference work. The mere fact that a book is in the library is no guarantee against bias or misinformation. The same can be said of Wikipedia articles. This does not make them useless, it just means that they should be approached differently than one approaches a typical reference work. Articles should be examined for their documentation, and these sources should in turn be scrutinized; readers should review the discussion page and the history of changes to the article to gain insight into recent edits; related topics can be explored via hyperlinks within the article; questions or concerns can be posed to Wikipedians on the talk page. Above all, visitors should recognize the malleable nature of the site and so exercise critical judgment about the information they encounter. What makes Wikipedia seem so dangerous to some...
Words: 337 - Pages: 2
...complicate it at times. There are several things that can help college life become easier and more manageable. One of the main things and if not the most important it will be the ability to identify and separate credible online sources from non-credible ones. It is very true that technology has help make college life easier, with search engines such as Google or Bing at just one click away of distance. The only problem is that with so many choices to pick from how to tell if a source is even worth to look at without having to expend a great amount of time looking at each one through. Even though non-credible sources are easier to find, credible sources are more reliable because they are usually written by experts and have more substantial information in them. If we take a credible source like “Rising prevalence of cohabitation in United States may have partially offset decline in marriage rates” from the Family Planning Perspectives and compared against a non-credible sources like “Cohabitation in the United States” from Wikipedia, we can see that the article from the credible source has the components that help sort out a credible source from a non-credible. The article “Rising prevalence of cohabitation in United States may have partially offset decline in marriage rates” from the Family Planning Perspectives has the main things that you should look in a credible source. First of all I found the article in the CINAHL with Full Text database from the library most popular database...
Words: 825 - Pages: 4
...resourceful I will not use the source. A couple of courses back that most reliable sources for the internet are .Gov .Edu. .Org .Mil. Com. Something’s you should look out for who is the author of the website and if the author doesn’t have credentials then the source is not reliable. I like to look a gossip columns about celebrities most of the time what they are saying is not true. Know if they say reliable sources then I might think it may be true. If a website seems old, it's probably best to steer clear. One way to check - look for a "last updated" date on the page or site. If a site looks poorly designed and inexperienced, chances are it was created by amateurs. This means the source is not reliable. But be careful - just because a website is professionally designed doesn't mean it's reliable. Many sources of information come from people or organizations that have a special interest in the information being presented. This can cause the information to be biased in a way that persuades the reader to believe the information being presented and form an opinion that shows favor to the reader or organization. Some drug companies tell you about all the benefits of their medication but not the side effects of the drug I think that why drug companies have a lot of people are suing drug companies. anyone can write anything on a website doesn’t mean it’s true for example Wikipedia I thought it was a reliable source for information but about a year ago some ask why I use the source...
Words: 394 - Pages: 2
...way to analyze is to look at a specific Wikipedia page and diagnose it. For historic purposes, the Wikipedia page “Viking expansion” provides information on the Norse, mainly known as Vikings. Rather than evaluating this page on the Norse expansion and settlement throughout the world, looking at the specific Norse activity in the British Isles will be more effective. This page describes the invasions that the Norse people from Scandinavia done throughout the years in the British Isles, including the reasons and rulers. It also provides background of the British Isles including which languages and religions were used or practiced in a certain area. From there, like the background information, the events of expansion are listed on the page in chorological order starting in 793CE; each listing how the invasion happened, who was ruling at a particular time, and battles. The end of the page gives a brief acknowledgement of written records and archaeological evidence. At first glance this specific Wikipedia page looks excellent, but looking deeper into the pages strengths and weaknesses made its reliability fragile. Wikipedia has policies that state articles are to contain no original research, a neutral point of view, and that all of their information must be verifiable, accurate, and comprehensive. Assuming that every page follows these rules, anyone would naturally assume that the given information on a page is consistent. Analyzing how well the “Norse activity in the British...
Words: 2582 - Pages: 11
...1. Who is the founder of Wikipedia? When was it found? Where is the company located? How many servers store the information? Who owns Wikipedia? Define Wikipedia. The founder of Wikipedia are two internet entrepreneurs named Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia was launched on January 15th, 2001. The Wikipedia company headquarters is located in San Francisco, California. As of 2012, Wikipedia has 339 servers. There is no one person that owns Wikipedia. It is a crowd sourced encyclopedia with over 75,000 active registered editors from around the world, plus an uncountable number of unregistered editors who are all working together to try to make sure the information on Wikipedia is truthful and accurate. Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as “Wikipedians.” Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles. 2. Describe the criticisms regarding Wikipedia. Why does the site generate controversy? The most prominent criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a primary source. For that reason, much of the information that is provided on the site often cannot be trusted. Because the website is an open content encyclopedia, any person in the world can log in to the site and edit any topic within the encyclopedia. This can, and often does, lead to incorrect postings containing faulty information. For instance, some of...
Words: 900 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia: Appropriate For What The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has grown impressively since its creation eight years ago. Its 8.2 million entries in 253 languages have been written entirely by web volunteers. That sounds like an impressive story of success, if it was not the polemic behind it. Whereas many defend the free source of information others ban the website because the writers are anonymous volunteers and the revision process questionable. If the source people are using for writing an essay is not reliable so they are not. That is a very simple sentence that demonstrates how dangerous it can be avoiding to evaluate well the sources of information used as a baseline for our creation. A good source of information needs to be impartial, showing different points of view about the subject, has to have the right style and tone, depending on our audience and purpose of writing, needs to be updated, and the author to have the ideal credentials to write about the topic with property. Most of the critic against Wikipedia resides in the argument that nobody can trust a source that everyone can edit, and it does make sense, but radicalism is not needed. The historian Waters (2007) have said that the absence of accountability of the website is reason to ban students from using Wikipedia in research where they are responsible for informational accuracy. That is truly an argument that needs to be considered when discussing if the source is valid for formal researches, but why...
Words: 744 - Pages: 3
...2009, from http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090512/ap_on_hi_te/eu_ireland_wikipedia_ hoaxer DUBLIN - When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news. His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked. The sociology major's made-up quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India. They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first. A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets in an e-mail and the corrections began. "I was really shocked at the results from the experiment," Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia. "I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn't come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up," he said. "It would have...
Words: 803 - Pages: 4
