Wikipedia as a Reliable Source
Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).
Its name comes from the derivatives of two words. Wiki, from “the Hawaiian word Wikiwiki meaning fast or quick” (Spatt p376). The root ‘pedia’ derived from encyclopedia or the greek paidia references education. That is what Wikipedia sets out to do, provide a quick education on a given topic. However in that effort to provide a quick education it is my contention that vital elements of scholarly research are left out making it an invalid primary source for graduate level research.
Credible is defined by Merriam-Webster’s as “offering reasonable grounds for being believed.” Looking at the credentials of Wikipedia articles is a bit more complicated than with most other sources. “Credibility of a web source is linked to the knowledge-ability and seriousness of the individual or the disinterested commitment of the organization that originated and maintains the site” (Spatt, 2011). Because it depends on the Web 2.0 model where the users supply content, often anonymously, there are no clear credentials to cite or official governing body to validate. These are not like textbooks or peer reviewed journals where the author is known and the work has been reviewed. In Wikipedia amateurs share their knowledge in an aggregate effort to explain the facts, as they see them, of a topic. Because these articles are all written and edited by
Its name comes from the derivatives of two words. Wiki, from “the Hawaiian word Wikiwiki meaning fast or quick” (Spatt p376). The root ‘pedia’ derived from encyclopedia or the greek paidia references education. That is what Wikipedia sets out to do, provide a quick education on a given topic. However in that effort to provide a quick education it is my contention that vital elements of scholarly research are left out making it an invalid primary source for graduate level research.
Credible is defined by Merriam-Webster’s as “offering reasonable grounds for being believed.” Looking at the credentials of Wikipedia articles is a bit more complicated than with most other sources. “Credibility of a web source is linked to the knowledge-ability and seriousness of the individual or the disinterested commitment of the organization that originated and maintains the site” (Spatt, 2011). Because it depends on the Web 2.0 model where the users supply content, often anonymously, there are no clear credentials to cite or official governing body to validate. These are not like textbooks or peer reviewed journals where the author is known and the work has been reviewed. In Wikipedia amateurs share their knowledge in an aggregate effort to explain the facts, as they see them, of a topic. Because these articles are all written and edited by