Wikipedia and Reliability
I’m always trying to find new efficiencies in all aspects of my life, weather it be a super effective 30 minute workout with Jillian Michael’s BodyShred, or when researching for an upcoming assignment. One resource that I’ll suggest is Wikipedia, and I’m not the only person who will; “It’s an online information source that is increasingly used as the first, and sometimes only, stop for online encyclopedic information.”(Kapila, D., & Royal, C. 2009)
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.
Because of these perceptions, I rarely used Wikipedia as a source for information, but more as a database of available resources. To make my time spent researching more efficient, I would search for something in Wikipedia, quickly skim through the article for a general understanding, and skip straight to the Bibliography for originating documents and articles.
This raises an interesting point; users have started citing content! In the past couple of years, there has been an exponential increase in contributors, from all backgrounds, careers and areas of interest, passionately creating a large database of information. “Users constitute an arm of volunteers or amateurs who dedicate their time and energy to developing and sustaining a
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.
Because of these perceptions, I rarely used Wikipedia as a source for information, but more as a database of available resources. To make my time spent researching more efficient, I would search for something in Wikipedia, quickly skim through the article for a general understanding, and skip straight to the Bibliography for originating documents and articles.
This raises an interesting point; users have started citing content! In the past couple of years, there has been an exponential increase in contributors, from all backgrounds, careers and areas of interest, passionately creating a large database of information. “Users constitute an arm of volunteers or amateurs who dedicate their time and energy to developing and sustaining a