Scholarly Vs Popular Wikipedia Essay
Virginia Marciano
WK2Assgn
Scholarly versus popular writing among accounting articles through various different resources. Researching the popular Wikipedia.com, an internet website and the Walden library to do a comparison of articles for credibility. Wikipedia.com is not a scholarly resource, on the basis that “Scholarly writing is usually confined to journals or textbooks, which are more difficult to find in the market place and are usually read by academics.” In an article by ProQuest (2001): “a publication is considered scholarly if it is authored by academics for a target audience that is mainly academic”, which would then seem to exclude Wikipedia.com from being a scholarly resource. In conclusion, I think it is safe to conclude that with the above mentioned points Wikipedia.com is not a scholarly resource. …show more content…
One being that the site can be changed by anyone and that persons credentials can be unknown, irrelevant or nonexistent. The sources or references listed for which the information is based on can be invalid, lack relevance or reliability. A second reason would be what was written may not necessarily had been for academic or professional audiences. Because it is unclear how many other theories were exhausted from consideration, and ideas expressed could be based entirely on biased or opinion. Lastly I would say uncertainty of the accuracy of information provided. In example, dates can be out dated, erroneous, or not based on the facts. All the before mentioned are contributing factors to why I believe Wikipedia.com is not a credible
WK2Assgn
Scholarly versus popular writing among accounting articles through various different resources. Researching the popular Wikipedia.com, an internet website and the Walden library to do a comparison of articles for credibility. Wikipedia.com is not a scholarly resource, on the basis that “Scholarly writing is usually confined to journals or textbooks, which are more difficult to find in the market place and are usually read by academics.” In an article by ProQuest (2001): “a publication is considered scholarly if it is authored by academics for a target audience that is mainly academic”, which would then seem to exclude Wikipedia.com from being a scholarly resource. In conclusion, I think it is safe to conclude that with the above mentioned points Wikipedia.com is not a scholarly resource. …show more content…
One being that the site can be changed by anyone and that persons credentials can be unknown, irrelevant or nonexistent. The sources or references listed for which the information is based on can be invalid, lack relevance or reliability. A second reason would be what was written may not necessarily had been for academic or professional audiences. Because it is unclear how many other theories were exhausted from consideration, and ideas expressed could be based entirely on biased or opinion. Lastly I would say uncertainty of the accuracy of information provided. In example, dates can be out dated, erroneous, or not based on the facts. All the before mentioned are contributing factors to why I believe Wikipedia.com is not a credible