The author’s purpose is to testify about his experience with Wikipedia and persuade the intended audience that Wikipedia is not a credible or…
Wikipedia's mission was to share the entire world’s information with everyone everywhere, anytime. A quotation of Jimmy Wales (the founder of Wikipedia) taken from his personal website said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing" (2013). Because anyone can edit information on Wikipedia, many different fields of knowledge can become part of the encyclopedia; it is very useful for getting a quick review of information. "Wikipedia isn't a commercial website. It's a community creation" (Wales, 2009). I personally us Wikipedia as a…
Wikipedia is one of the most sought out information website. Jimmy Wales, founder says this about his website, “Wikipedia is something special…, it is a place we can all go to think, to learn and share our knowledge with others” (Wikipedia, 2012, p1). This resourceful tool has up-to-date news, press releases, and it provides its users with the convenience to various languages. In this paper team C will debate on supporting arguments for Wikipedia and opposing arguments if it is credible and a valid source of information.…
Philip Lau, writer of the essay, “The Limitations of Wikipedia”, is successful in persuading his readers that the webpage Wikipedia should not be used for college level research. In his essay, Philip states that, “Wikipedia can be a beneficial starting point in gaining general information on a subject but users should be wary of incorrect information”. The essayist’s use of examples, facts and quotes are what makes his argument so convincing.…
Centuries have passed, whereas man has sought a means to share their stories, some were factual whereas others were simply factually based. In either case, the methods used throughout the years have transformed from cave drawings into endless amounts of data unified through the internet. Taking advantage of technological advances, Wikipedia has arguably become the predominant source for providing information across the globe. However, its success is completely based on its users to add and edit all data presented. Controversially, the information does not go through any real vetting process before worldly presentation, therefor worth no more than cave drawings or old wives’ tales.…
Wikipedia is not necessarily anti-academic but it is anti-elitist as evidenced by the short shrift given to eminent academics in debates when they expected deference (see Keen 2007, 43[pic]4). Second, the non-proprietary nature of Wikipedia cuts against academic culture which valorises the rights of the author and publisher. Third, the anonymity of Wikipedia articles is alien to the cache of the named writer of the journal article or book. Fourth, the collaborative process challenges the norm of individual creation, prevalent in the arts and social sciences. Fifth, as intimated, Wikipedia departs from the standard mode of vetting by peer review. It is not true that articles are not reviewed. On the contrary, they…
The trustworthy of Wikipedia is a huge issue for people especially, students who need to write plenty of research papers. To most teachers’ point of view, Wikipedia is considered as inaccurate source which cannot support the statement strongly. As same as my opinion, Wikipedia only used to search vague information in order to understand whole structure not details.…
Despite the online encyclopedia Wikipedia 's global popularity and massive amount of data covering vast ranges of topics across multiple languages, the validity of the content is questionable. It is a wise decision for universities and other educational institutions to prohibit students from using Wikipedia for reference material. The well known online knowledge bank has close to 4.5 million articles in English alone. With such massive content, it 's probably safe to assume that every person with Internet access has come across one of these articles at some point in their browsing history. The webpage name Wikipedia is very similar to the word encyclopedia and may imply to users that the website is an online version…
There was a time in my University career when using Wikipedia as a scholarly resource was deemed unacceptable, and at first thought, I would completely agree. The content found on Wikipedia is generated entirely from its users, with little verification of accuracy. Even “the Wikipedia Foundation … exerts very little control over the content of its encyclopedias.” (Jensen, R. 2012) As it stands, anyone that signs up for a free account can update and create an article. “Because of the open nature of contributions … [many feel that content is] inaccurate, misleading, or generally incorrect.” (Kapila, D., & Royal, C. 2009) What’s more, biases in articles exist because of the user only contributes what they deem as relevant, leaving room for gaps of relevant and pertinent information.…
The name Wikipedia comes from Wiki is from Hawaiian word, which means “quick” combined with the word encyclopedia. So, the name highlights the good possibilities of this Internet encyclopedia. Its interface is very simple, not so much the picture, it is particularly fast when people open this Web page and search for the information they want. According to people statistical that Wikipedia has 30 million articles and 287 languages. People can search a lot of information they need and translate to their own language at the first time. This Internet encyclopedia is that volunteers can edit the information on Wikipedia. This policy makes people felt fair, because they are not scholar but they can write something on the encyclopedia. Therefore, Wikipedia makes people’s language and literacy more usability and reliability. In the project I will discuss how Wikipedia impacts language by evaluating its usability and reliability.…
Wikipedia is a well-known website to many internet surfers. The word “wiki,” is defined by Britannica.com as a “site that can be modified or contributed to by users.” With that in mind, there has been great debate over Wikipedia and the information provided on this website regarding its accuracy. Even with knowledge of this debate, internet surfers still continuously use Wikipedia.org for all the knowledge that this website has to offer. As far as comparison on another encyclopedia website, Wikipedia is on top compared to Britannica.com, another website used for information search. There are many websites all over the internet that offer numerous amounts of information, but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia.com offers the greatest deal of information for all searchers.…
It is important for society to find a reliable source of knowledge, as it is a powerful factor which helps society to attain success. As a good example of the significance of knowledge for society, the Tree of Knowledge from the Garden of Eden represents, not just a source of absolute knowledge, but how desperately human nature seeks that perfect source. However, the Tree of Knowledge does not exist in the real world. Thus, society is facing a problem of finding the most effective way to produce accurate knowledge because mistaken knowledge has no value. In his essay “The Hive,” historian and writer Marshall Poe points out two sources for knowledge: social consensus and experts. In the past, it was hard to gather knowledge efficiently due to equivocation, and experts were considered to be the most reliable source of knowledge. But today, the Internet has provided society with the convenient environment for finding and storing information. In his essay, Poe discusses the phenomenon of the web-site Wikipedia as an example of a successful effort in collaborative knowledge, which is produced during the process of communication and negotiation by society and experts concerning the information regarding an object of study. A professor at Harvard University and author of “Reporting Live from Tomorrow,” Daniel Gilbert suggests relying on the experiences of others, whom he calls “surrogates,” in order to obtain more reliable knowledge. Collaborative knowledge is based on society’s collective experiences. It is meant to accumulate and constantly update information from society. On the other hand, experts are a key for progress in society as they perform deeper research about a subject. Therefore, in order to produce reliable knowledge, society must consult with experts, while experts should consider the experiences of other people when conducting their research.…
Writing papers and using the internet as a resource for information come hand in hand as a college student. However, is it safe to trust one of the most widely used and accepted forms of information on the internet today? The argument is brought forth in multiple articles concerning how Wikipedia has been used and abused over many years. Through the eyes of many viewpoints, though, Wikipedia can still relate to almost any topic and provide quality information. Individuals across the globe reveal the validity of its material by dedicating time and effort into creating source-worthy knowledge for readers to use. The incorporation of Wikipedia and how it can best be interpreted as a helpful, educational resource in academic…
Editing. In a departure from the style of traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia is open to outside editing. This means that, with the exception of particularly ...…
First of all, it is widely recognized that World Wide Web contains a large quantity of unauthentic and unreliable source of information. With the popularity of technology accompanied by internet in modern world, the increasing number of people accessing internet can freely share materials via websites, blogs, etc. The problem is not all of them are specialists or professionals, or they share the one's academic experience. Many internet users just post their own experience or understanding which is not based on dependable foundation. Moreover, vandals together with naughty individuals often deliberately upload wrong materials or try to modify true available information for their certain purposes. Unfortunately, most web administrators are not normally able to control such a huge number of posts from users. Wikipedia is a typical example, through the comparison between scientific articles and those in Encyclopedia Britannic considered as the most scholarly of encyclopedias scientists found that both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts (the Nature, 2005). This, inevitably, leads to the wide range but unreliable knowledge available on World Wide Web. That students are not…