Pros And Cons Of Wikipedia
Wikipedia: Free Citations to the Free Encyclopedia
In 2006, a study found that about eighty-seven percent of Wikipedia’s articles did not contain errors (Maehre). Wikipedia has been criticized by many who believe that its editorial process creates a source of information that is erroneous, uneven in quality, and subject to acts of deliberate attempts to lower the accuracy of information (Belanger). The website 's millions of registered users, supporters, and administrators argue that they can edit the erroneous information found on Wikipedia, thus making the articles more veracious, comprehensive, and reliable (Belanger). A board member of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, says that the more frequently people use Wikipedia, the more they will come to …show more content…
accept it as a reliable source (Shaw). Wikipedia is a useful tool for the collection of knowledge on all subjects. It is accessible to everyone, fast, and more updated than a standard encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an important source that keeps, maintains, and updates information collectively and therefore should be considered a credible source in schools.
Wikipedia should be allowed as a scholarly source because it includes entries other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, do not.
It covers topics in the Euro-American world, for instance in 360 B.C., when Plato attacks the Athenian democracy in the Republic (Shaw). Even the most academic of sources have neglected these topics because they were not, what they considered, adequate for their intellectual ideas (Shaw). Wales said that when he had heard that Wikipedia was cited for the definition of the term “turducken” he had laughed, thinking, “What other source would you use? Britannica does not cover this nonsense” (Shaw). “Journalist Cathy Davidson had recently researched the origins of calculus, and found the standard Western histories, generally credited by England 's Isaac Newton and Germany 's Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. But Wikipedia went much further with the discovery, tracing basic calculus functions back to the Egyptians in 1800 B.C., and then to China, India, and Mesopotamia—all hundreds of years before the Europeans” (Shaw). It is evident that other encyclopedias do not contain the vast number of diverse articles Wikipedia does; therefore, Wikipedia should be considered a credible …show more content…
source.
With the recent growth of technology, students utilize sources like Wikipedia, which is updated more often than standard encyclopedias.
Wikipedia continually updates its information, making it easy for new data to be added expeditiously; traditional print encyclopedias, such as the World Book Encyclopedia, take years to update (Chandler). One problem with the old encyclopedia system was that none of the information reflected recent changes or current events (Belanger). For example, if someone was interested in studying more about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 or 1964, they would have to rely on either newspapers, television or radio accounts of the assassination until the assassination was written in a new volume of the encyclopedia (Belanger); something that could take years. The deaths of famous people are generally written into a Wikipedia article the day they occur (Belanger). Wikipedia provides instant access to something that may have happened only a few minutes prior; and therefore should be considered a reliable
source.
Critics should consider whether some of the sources they consider credible have their own inadequacies (Shaw). For instance, in December 2005, the scientific journal, Nature, compared the amount of mistakes found in Wikipedia to the number found in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered to be the Gold Standard of reference (Belanger). The scientific journal concluded that the number of inaccuracies in Wikipedia was almost equal to the Britannica’s, four and three respectively (Belanger). Wikipedia is not as inaccurate as critics may claim; instead they place too much emphasis on the source rather than the information found in Wikipedia 's articles itself (Maehre).
Because anyone can edit the content, critics believe Wikipedia is unreliable, inaccurate, and uneven in quality. However, just because anyone is able to revise or contribute to the articles, does not mean bogus information can be written and then accepted as authentic information. All articles posted to Wikipedia go through a review process where the information is evaluated for accuracy. Every article has millions of eyes to look through for inaccuracies (Maehre); being able to edit the content means anyone can also fix mistakes. Users and readers may flag the information in Wikipedia if they feel that the information needs more sources to verify what was written (Belanger); therefore, Wikipedia should be considered a credible source.
Ultimately, Wikipedia contains a plethora of information that is filtered for inaccuracies, and is more updated than a standard encyclopedia. Fitting all the criteria needed for a credible source, the ability to cite Wikipedia in papers should be granted in schools all over the country. Instead of banning Wikipedia as a source; allow it and hold students responsible for the overall credibility of the cited material in their papers, since they are the ones who chose it. Wikipedia is an important source that keeps, maintains, and updates information collectively and therefore should be considered a credible source in schools.
Works Cited
Belanger, Craig, and Marlanda English. "Point: Wikipedia Is an Important Source of Information." Points of View: Reference Center. EBSCOhost, n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Chandler, Cullen J., and Alison S. Gregory. "Sleeping With The Enemy: Wikipedia In The College Classroom." History Teacher 43.2 (2010): 247-257. History Reference Center. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Maehre, Jeff. "What It Means To Ban Wikipedia: An Exploration Of The Pedagogical Principles At Stake." College Teaching 57.4 (2009): 229-236. ERIC. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Shaw, Donna. "Wikipedia In The Newsroom." American Journalism Review 30.1 (2008): 40. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
In 2006, a study found that about eighty-seven percent of Wikipedia’s articles did not contain errors (Maehre). Wikipedia has been criticized by many who believe that its editorial process creates a source of information that is erroneous, uneven in quality, and subject to acts of deliberate attempts to lower the accuracy of information (Belanger). The website 's millions of registered users, supporters, and administrators argue that they can edit the erroneous information found on Wikipedia, thus making the articles more veracious, comprehensive, and reliable (Belanger). A board member of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, says that the more frequently people use Wikipedia, the more they will come to …show more content…
accept it as a reliable source (Shaw). Wikipedia is a useful tool for the collection of knowledge on all subjects. It is accessible to everyone, fast, and more updated than a standard encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an important source that keeps, maintains, and updates information collectively and therefore should be considered a credible source in schools.
Wikipedia should be allowed as a scholarly source because it includes entries other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, do not.
It covers topics in the Euro-American world, for instance in 360 B.C., when Plato attacks the Athenian democracy in the Republic (Shaw). Even the most academic of sources have neglected these topics because they were not, what they considered, adequate for their intellectual ideas (Shaw). Wales said that when he had heard that Wikipedia was cited for the definition of the term “turducken” he had laughed, thinking, “What other source would you use? Britannica does not cover this nonsense” (Shaw). “Journalist Cathy Davidson had recently researched the origins of calculus, and found the standard Western histories, generally credited by England 's Isaac Newton and Germany 's Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. But Wikipedia went much further with the discovery, tracing basic calculus functions back to the Egyptians in 1800 B.C., and then to China, India, and Mesopotamia—all hundreds of years before the Europeans” (Shaw). It is evident that other encyclopedias do not contain the vast number of diverse articles Wikipedia does; therefore, Wikipedia should be considered a credible …show more content…
source.
With the recent growth of technology, students utilize sources like Wikipedia, which is updated more often than standard encyclopedias.
Wikipedia continually updates its information, making it easy for new data to be added expeditiously; traditional print encyclopedias, such as the World Book Encyclopedia, take years to update (Chandler). One problem with the old encyclopedia system was that none of the information reflected recent changes or current events (Belanger). For example, if someone was interested in studying more about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 or 1964, they would have to rely on either newspapers, television or radio accounts of the assassination until the assassination was written in a new volume of the encyclopedia (Belanger); something that could take years. The deaths of famous people are generally written into a Wikipedia article the day they occur (Belanger). Wikipedia provides instant access to something that may have happened only a few minutes prior; and therefore should be considered a reliable
source.
Critics should consider whether some of the sources they consider credible have their own inadequacies (Shaw). For instance, in December 2005, the scientific journal, Nature, compared the amount of mistakes found in Wikipedia to the number found in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered to be the Gold Standard of reference (Belanger). The scientific journal concluded that the number of inaccuracies in Wikipedia was almost equal to the Britannica’s, four and three respectively (Belanger). Wikipedia is not as inaccurate as critics may claim; instead they place too much emphasis on the source rather than the information found in Wikipedia 's articles itself (Maehre).
Because anyone can edit the content, critics believe Wikipedia is unreliable, inaccurate, and uneven in quality. However, just because anyone is able to revise or contribute to the articles, does not mean bogus information can be written and then accepted as authentic information. All articles posted to Wikipedia go through a review process where the information is evaluated for accuracy. Every article has millions of eyes to look through for inaccuracies (Maehre); being able to edit the content means anyone can also fix mistakes. Users and readers may flag the information in Wikipedia if they feel that the information needs more sources to verify what was written (Belanger); therefore, Wikipedia should be considered a credible source.
Ultimately, Wikipedia contains a plethora of information that is filtered for inaccuracies, and is more updated than a standard encyclopedia. Fitting all the criteria needed for a credible source, the ability to cite Wikipedia in papers should be granted in schools all over the country. Instead of banning Wikipedia as a source; allow it and hold students responsible for the overall credibility of the cited material in their papers, since they are the ones who chose it. Wikipedia is an important source that keeps, maintains, and updates information collectively and therefore should be considered a credible source in schools.
Works Cited
Belanger, Craig, and Marlanda English. "Point: Wikipedia Is an Important Source of Information." Points of View: Reference Center. EBSCOhost, n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Chandler, Cullen J., and Alison S. Gregory. "Sleeping With The Enemy: Wikipedia In The College Classroom." History Teacher 43.2 (2010): 247-257. History Reference Center. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Maehre, Jeff. "What It Means To Ban Wikipedia: An Exploration Of The Pedagogical Principles At Stake." College Teaching 57.4 (2009): 229-236. ERIC. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Shaw, Donna. "Wikipedia In The Newsroom." American Journalism Review 30.1 (2008): 40. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.