Credible Source of Information
Wikipedia as a Credible Source
Group A
MGT/521 Management
January 24, 2010
Wikipedia as a Credible Source With the emergence of the internet as a resource center for students a question arises on the credibility of web based sites. In this paper we will debate the use of Wikipedia as a credible source of information.
Support of Wikipedia Since navigating the web can be difficult in obtaining information Wikipedia should be viewed as a primary source of initial, credible and valid information. In academia credible information, “often means library-mediated proprietary sources such as scholarly monographs, reference books, and peer-reviewed journals” (Information Today, 2010, pg. 40). The problem with this fundamental academic definition is in self limiting resource web sites to the research student. Wikipedia can be beneficial to the academic student as well as the general researching public. Wikipedia covers an immense variety of topics that is continually maintained and updated, relevant, and non-biased in its presentation of information. Wikipedia possess all the qualities a reliable source would have. Wikipedia’s premise is promoting involvement of the general public for inputting information and continually adding into a comprehensive knowledge base.
Though information can be added anonymously a distinction is made on the text alerting the researcher to the unknown author and the validity of their credentials and information that can then be subjected to further scrutiny by the researcher. Though an increased exposure to the author and their credentials would provide greater validity to the information researched the failure to do so should not fault Wikipedia, nor reduce its importance, as a reliable starting point for web based information that could be built upon by sources with greater acceptance by academia.
Opposition to Wikipedia
Wikipedia has become a popular online source of research for a public of diverse ages,
Group A
MGT/521 Management
January 24, 2010
Wikipedia as a Credible Source With the emergence of the internet as a resource center for students a question arises on the credibility of web based sites. In this paper we will debate the use of Wikipedia as a credible source of information.
Support of Wikipedia Since navigating the web can be difficult in obtaining information Wikipedia should be viewed as a primary source of initial, credible and valid information. In academia credible information, “often means library-mediated proprietary sources such as scholarly monographs, reference books, and peer-reviewed journals” (Information Today, 2010, pg. 40). The problem with this fundamental academic definition is in self limiting resource web sites to the research student. Wikipedia can be beneficial to the academic student as well as the general researching public. Wikipedia covers an immense variety of topics that is continually maintained and updated, relevant, and non-biased in its presentation of information. Wikipedia possess all the qualities a reliable source would have. Wikipedia’s premise is promoting involvement of the general public for inputting information and continually adding into a comprehensive knowledge base.
Though information can be added anonymously a distinction is made on the text alerting the researcher to the unknown author and the validity of their credentials and information that can then be subjected to further scrutiny by the researcher. Though an increased exposure to the author and their credentials would provide greater validity to the information researched the failure to do so should not fault Wikipedia, nor reduce its importance, as a reliable starting point for web based information that could be built upon by sources with greater acceptance by academia.
Opposition to Wikipedia
Wikipedia has become a popular online source of research for a public of diverse ages,
References: O’Leary, M. (2010). Credible Web Sources: The Hunt Goes On. Information Today, 27, 40. Rector, L. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7–22. Angela Doucet Rand (2010). Journal of Library Administration, page 928