The Web 2.0 - free, fast-paced way to share information all over the world. Wikipedia allows Internet users to generate their own content, of course stating reliable resources. "In September 2009, English Wikipedia enjoyed 67 million unique visits." Tens of thousands of users are writing and editing Wikipedia's three million and plus articles at any given time and it has been known as a massive virtual community around shared interests. Anytime I Google anything, which everyone uses, Wikipedia is definitely one of top five results.
Because any volunteer can make adjustments and edit articles on Wikipedia, it is very critical to pay attention to the content provided on Wikipedia. For instance, if anyone ever writes something false about you or your foundation or cause, you need to know instantly when it happens and what to do about it. For most of the time, errors about important persons or subjects are often corrected instantly but if some information has been left falsified, it could cause major damage. Which brings to my next point - can we, as Web 2.0 users, trust Wikipedia's information? This is a tricky question and most of the time, teachers would prefer that students do not use Wikipedia as a credible resource. The anonymity of Wikipedia makes it even difficult to fish out errors about each subject and since there could be a lot of bias information given out, it is pretty hard to call Wikipedia articles reliable.
Problems in Wikipedia's reliability include; "weasel words" that can compose misleading pictures, inappropriate emphases, and outdated information. Also, there are possibilities that the citations used to make an article a 'credible source' may not even be a special reference to the subject in its entity. "You also don't trust Wikipedia because its 'reliable sources' rule demands secondary sources"(188). How can we, as researchers, consider an article of Wikipedia as a factually based truth and not a biased opinion? It's really hard to tell and simply because of this possibility, I believe that teachers wouldn't consider Wikipedia as a credible source.
"Wikipedia has sometimes suffered from the self-editing that is intrinsic to it, giving rise at times to potentially libellous statements. However inherently, I cannot see that what is in Wikipedia is any less likely to be true than what is published in a book or on the websites of news organizations..." (196). I totally agree with this quote. I think this sums up entirely why I use Wikipedia to gather vast information. What makes a book/news websites like CNN.com and Wikipedia different from another? Nothing really except the reputation of its reliability of a book and a Wikipedia differs. There was no controversy behind editing of a book when it was first published because there was only one person writing it. Why not consider a vast community of volunteers sharing their facts on a webpage as a credible source?
No comments:
Post a Comment