There are many outlets to consider when it comes to web-based media and resources in education. One can choose from scholarly journals online or educational videos from a variety of websites such as CNN or A&E. Nevertheless, there are some websites that are not as creditable as others, and one should be cautious when crediting certain websites as a resource. For example, Wikipedia should not be considered one of the most lucrative websites when writing a research paper or for creditable source.
Wikipedia is described as “a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly-editable model,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia is written collaboratively by a group of international “volunteers,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Volunteers being anyone who feels inclined to enter a new article or edit previously entered information. This can lead one to believe that some information entered can be biased or very opinionated instead of actual facts. Furthermore, the information provided could just be incorrect! I do not doubt the fact that some of the information is correct and factual, but it is an uneasy feeling knowing that any 'John Doe' can enter information compared to an expert in the perspective fields.
Stephen Colbert’s piece “Wikiality” proves the lack of dependability of Wikipedia. Colbert jokes on how Wikipedia quotes him on one of his jokes that he made on “The Colbert Report” as if it was an actual fact that is profound enough to be included in an encyclopedia. "Any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them it becomes true," (Colbert, 2006). With that statement he then decides to change the entry himself during the show, and the previously quoted statement is now a different statement without much effort. Moreover, if I wanted to go change his entry, I could by simply logging in Wikipedia and typing it. This could definitely cause confusion or misinformation if someone were to use this for reference purposes. Colbert goes on to say if he disagrees with something that is considered a universal fact, he can change that also. He uses the example of George Washington owing slaves. "Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves. If I want to say he didn't that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact," (Colbert,2006).
Wikipedia states they are aware of some the cons that can arise by letting anyone enter information. The encyclopedia says that most of the older articles will be more concrete and complete, “while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia claims to have control over the vandalism or nonsense entered into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia defines vandalism as “any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated,” (Wikipedia, 2010). They then go on to say, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Basically, they believe most of entries are made with intentions to improve the encyclopedia rather than hurt it. Where will the line be drawn if administrators of Wikipedia believe that all entries have the intentions of positivity and effectiveness?
Overall, Wikipedia should not be used as a creditable source for reference or research. There will be some factual information found on Wikipedia, but there will also be some misconstrued information also. Therefore, I do not think Wikipedia should be the main source for concrete research or education.
Works Cited
Wikipedia:About. (2010, January). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About.
Colbert, S. Wikiality. (2006, July 31). Comedy Central. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=72347.
Wikipedia is described as “a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly-editable model,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia is written collaboratively by a group of international “volunteers,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Volunteers being anyone who feels inclined to enter a new article or edit previously entered information. This can lead one to believe that some information entered can be biased or very opinionated instead of actual facts. Furthermore, the information provided could just be incorrect! I do not doubt the fact that some of the information is correct and factual, but it is an uneasy feeling knowing that any 'John Doe' can enter information compared to an expert in the perspective fields.
Stephen Colbert’s piece “Wikiality” proves the lack of dependability of Wikipedia. Colbert jokes on how Wikipedia quotes him on one of his jokes that he made on “The Colbert Report” as if it was an actual fact that is profound enough to be included in an encyclopedia. "Any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them it becomes true," (Colbert, 2006). With that statement he then decides to change the entry himself during the show, and the previously quoted statement is now a different statement without much effort. Moreover, if I wanted to go change his entry, I could by simply logging in Wikipedia and typing it. This could definitely cause confusion or misinformation if someone were to use this for reference purposes. Colbert goes on to say if he disagrees with something that is considered a universal fact, he can change that also. He uses the example of George Washington owing slaves. "Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves. If I want to say he didn't that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact," (Colbert,2006).
Wikipedia states they are aware of some the cons that can arise by letting anyone enter information. The encyclopedia says that most of the older articles will be more concrete and complete, “while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Wikipedia claims to have control over the vandalism or nonsense entered into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia defines vandalism as “any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated,” (Wikipedia, 2010). They then go on to say, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism,” (Wikipedia, 2010). Basically, they believe most of entries are made with intentions to improve the encyclopedia rather than hurt it. Where will the line be drawn if administrators of Wikipedia believe that all entries have the intentions of positivity and effectiveness?
Overall, Wikipedia should not be used as a creditable source for reference or research. There will be some factual information found on Wikipedia, but there will also be some misconstrued information also. Therefore, I do not think Wikipedia should be the main source for concrete research or education.
Works Cited
Wikipedia:About. (2010, January). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About.
Colbert, S. Wikiality. (2006, July 31). Comedy Central. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=72347.
I like your post. Well reasoned. Thank you for including a graphic and citations. I also appreciating your effort to customize your blog.
ReplyDelete