Is Wikipedia Inaccurate?

Providing a different approach and data collection and processing, Wikipedia has become a popular method for many to seek out answers. When it comes to the topic of Wikipedia, most of us will readily agree that it’s a great source for information. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of its validity. Whereas some are convinced that it’s a means of presenting facts, others maintain that its accuracy should be highly scrutinized. Although Wikipedia can provide expeditious access to vast amounts of knowledge, it should not be used a thoroughfare between proper research and producing quality written works.

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.
Unlike an encyclopedia, Wikipedia changes by the hour, which both lend to its popularity and to seemingly its credibility. Although these strengths maintain Wikipedia at the forefront of information gathering processes, it consequently creates a hidden weakness and false confidence. Within both examples, you’ll see the willingness of people to simply create truths rather than identify failure as well as a demonstration of truth by majority. However, neither instance is factually correct and when building upon a false foundation, could lead to your work crumbling beneath your