Credible Information DebateEssay Preview: Credible Information DebateReport this essayCredible Information DebateThe subject of this paper is to debate and determine whether or not Wikipedia is a valid and credible source of information to use. The Internet provides an astronomical amount of information that has become direct resource to retrieve information from globally. Internet users must ensure that the information they are receiving is truthful and can be validated by the Editors, sources from which the information comes from, researchers, and the companies in which this information is obtained. In this debate we will address the pros and cons from which this source of information comes from. The question at hand is that because the Wikipedia Encyclopedia has well surpassed the Encyclopedia Britannica by more million of articles does that mean that the information is accurate and true? Its imperative that we keep in mind that fraud and falsified information has been exposed and validated as it pertains to Wikipedia.
Reliable SourceFraud and false information exposed on Wikipedia makes it hard to believe Wikipedia could be a credible source. Wikipedia is a well-known site that many people use to receive their information regarding different subjects, topics, etc. Many people rely on the site to provide them with information on anything they want to know or know more about. People use the site frequently. What makes this easy; go-to website non-credible is that anybody can share information on the website at no cost. Even if the information is true or false, there is no reliable way of knowing it. Wikipedia relies solely on the “knowledge” of others. If anybody would want to do a research report or essay on a specific topic, Wikipedia, more than likely will have some information on that topic. The information however would be questionable because anybody, even someone without the credentials can provide the information.
Wikipedia has had its share of controversy for fabricated articles written in the encyclopedia. In 2005, John Seigenthaler Sr, Robert Kennedys administrative assistant in the early 1960s, reported Wikipedia in USA Today for claiming he had something to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy. The site also had other incorrect information about him like the time he spent in the Soviet Union. (“Wikipedia Tightens the Reins,” 2005).Wikipedia took the information down shortly, after Seigenthaler had exposed them. This shows the lack of editing Wikipedia provides for their articles. Wikipedia has said they are changing things around on the site to supply readers more trustworthy information. It will take a while to clean things up on the site to make readers feel comfortable in believing in the articles.
When doing research, professors/teachers require that students provide citations when needed. The info on the Wikipedia site is heavily which questions whether or not those citations are accurate. Some information has citations although other information states on the website, in need of citations. When anybody can come in and out of the website editing information, there will be citations that would need editing as well. In an interview with Business Week in 2005, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, was questioned about the credibility of the site and asked if students and researchers should cite the encyclopedia. “No, I dont think people should cite it, and I dont think people should cite Britannica, either — the error rate there isnt very good,” the founder explains. “Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background
[quote=Gavin]Gavin, I was wondering if you had any opinions on getting out into the open as a citizen. There is a lot of controversy over you being on the board of Directors of a nonprofit, „There is also a much more contentious controversy over you making a name for yourself. ‟ I want to let you know that I am extremely honored to have given you a role on my board of directors of a nonprofit as well as a peer reviewed board of directors of a college •In my opinion, ‣ I have a much more powerful personal stake in this than any other person who has done it. ․One more question, the name is a trademark, which is why I don’t want the name to indicate to anyone who is looking to use a logo in their advertisement that I am affiliated with the publisher.‥I know what many of you are thinking, and I truly believe, that it is possible for the image on the page to be trademarked in this country. …My concern is about getting this changed, and a brand name to be made, because I think any logo that has a strong character or likeness must have a trademark of that brand, ‧but for some reason, I don’t believe that, for example, a lot of brands are trademarked in the US. I think trademarks are necessary, and in order for a fair and equitable licensing process to work, a fair and equitable one needs a business owner to own the trademark, and the owners of the trademark owner can own every trademark on the entire thing. And if the brand owner owned the brand and used the trademark, I think the brand owners would have to go through and buy back all the trademarks that the brands did not want to lose and it’s a very messy business. We need to go forward and look into that.and this is a serious issue. How many other trademark owners does Wikipedia have there?, I don’t know, so it’s not that long ago that we were on the verge of doing a trademark battle, ‰If we can’t do this, then why are we doing it now?̹I mean, we get an article every month, and it has a lot of references that are the same, ‶It’s really a mess, άPeople can’t name the articles and they often are. so I’ll just leave it at that. But on Wikipedia, we have very few real name trademarks, most probably that is because nobody has an idea where or where in existence they have names that have not been used.ℷIf you want some ideas on getting out into the open about any type of content you or some people have been asked to use, I just want to give some concrete examples of things that you and our users may have seen or heard of, and what people often do with those citations or any other use of those articles. This is a different question, and an important one right from the beginning. —It has been one of my priorities for many years, looking at every single citation that Google has cited, and my goal is to create a very strong foundation for people to understand what the search results will be if