Wikipedia Can Not Be TrustedEssay Preview: Wikipedia Can Not Be TrustedReport this essayWikipedia Cant Be Trusted: Assignment #2The debate on whether Wikipedia is a creditable source of information or not is in almost all class rooms, and students and professors are on both sides of the subject. Some see Wikipedia as a valid source of information because most information is cited and the site goes through quality checks. Others think Wikipedia is not a valid source because the site has too wide scope of information and even though most articles posted are scholarly, not all are. Despite what some may say about the validity of Wikipedia, it is not credible and valid source of information.
A reader and I spoke at an event held at the University of British Columbia on the web. The speaker, Michael Gerson discussed the issue of intellectual property rights, arguing that, even if Wikipedia is classified as a creditable source of information, it has not been an “acceptable” source to use it as a foundation for scholarly knowledge. He also pointed out that even if Wikipedia has been categorized as a scholarly source because “it is important to maintain or be able to maintain a strong record of the origin and content” of academic literature, these are still “just things that go through quality checks” and there isn’t a way to be sure that the source is the same.
Gerson described the work of David St. Clair, an assistant professor in the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Paris, and David F. Gaffney, who led a research project “Uniting All Academic Societies: Social and Cultural Change”, an effort to provide a more effective research model for developing a more equitable global research model. They were responsible for a review of the original work on Wikipedia, published over a seven-month period. St. Clair pointed out that a key area of disagreement with this research was the way that the articles presented at the event were presented and categorized, in a way that suggested Wikipedia was not appropriate for such a site. “When it comes to scholarly content, Wikipedia is certainly an outstanding work that should have been taken seriously when it was launched,” said St. Clair.
Gevinson, Gaffney and St Clair also argued that there are important technical aspects in Wikipedia management that can have impacts on academic and public discourse. The authors argued that the current system of government and media management is not as effective as it should have been and that many of its most useful content is not yet available via the Internet.
An edited version of the article can be found here.
A reader and I spoke at an event held at the University of British Columbia on the web. The speaker, Michael Gerson discussed the issue of intellectual property rights, arguing that, even if Wikipedia is classified as a creditable source of information, it has not been an “acceptable” source to use it as a foundation for scholarly knowledge. He also pointed out that even if Wikipedia has been categorized as a scholarly source because “it is important to maintain or be able to maintain a strong record of the origin and content” of academic literature, these are still “just things that go through quality checks” and there isn’t a way to be sure that the source is the same.
Gerson described the work of David St. Clair, an assistant professor in the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Paris, and David F. Gaffney, who led a research project “Uniting All Academic Societies: Social and Cultural Change”, an effort to provide a more effective research model for developing a more equitable global research model. They were responsible for a review of the original work on Wikipedia, published over a seven-month period. St. Clair pointed out that a key area of disagreement with this research was the way that the articles presented at the event were presented and categorized, in a way that suggested Wikipedia was not appropriate for such a site. “When it comes to scholarly content, Wikipedia is certainly an outstanding work that should have been taken seriously when it was launched,” said St. Clair.
Gevinson, Gaffney and St Clair also argued that there are important technical aspects in Wikipedia management that can have impacts on academic and public discourse. The authors argued that the current system of government and media management is not as effective as it should have been and that many of its most useful content is not yet available via the Internet.
An edited version of the article can be found here.
Those who say that Wikipedia is a valid and credible source of information argue that it is so because most information is cited, and that every entry is subject to quality checks. Wikipedia has a lot of in depth information about many topics or debates. Wikipedia puts things in simple terms for people to understand. Wikipedia claims that it prohibits the use of the site to publish a persons personal views the site is an encyclopedia, and it only reports the facts (Wikipedia 2012). Another advantage of Wikipedia is a person is able to get up-to-date information compared to an encyclopedia that takes years to publish.
The scope of Wikipedia is vast, and while many articles are probably scholarly and cite credible information, that is not true for everything. People cannot trace back the information to who wrote it, or where they received their information. Also since anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can edit Wikipedia, false or biased information can be put on the site at anytime.
When editing information on Wikipedia, a person does not need to provide any information about themselves; they do not even need to give an email address. In an article “The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia,” the number one reason was that Wikipedia says on their site “we do not expect you to trust us,” that they are not a primary source, and some articles may contain errors (Moran, 2012). Wikipedia says they do try to edit the site, but there has been a time when false information was on the site for months. The founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales was asked if he thought students should cite Wikipedia. His response was “No, I dont think people should cite it, and I dont think people should cite Britannica, either People shouldnt be citing encyclopedias in the first place” (Ghajar, 2012). So even if the founder of the site does not think the information on Wikipedia is valid, how can students trust it?
Wikipedia may not be a valid source for factual information, but it can help a person who just needs to read the highlights of an event or a subject The site is organized, and it is easy to find what you are looking for. There are multiple links to articles or other sites, and the wording is very easy to