In an opinion piece, Middlebury College history professor Neil Waters argues why Wikipedia is not a valid source of information for any of his classes. While he values Wikipedia as a starting point for any research endeavor, the fact that the encyclopedia is an open-source platform that is capable of being edited by anyone, anywhere regardles of academic qualifications is an issue that should be brought to the forefront of higher education. Waters compares Wikipedia to the popular TV show "Family Feud," in that it doesn't matter what you think the right answer is to a question, but rather what you think the general public thinks the right answer is. Thus while Wikipedia is checked for accuracy, it is only pages that receive greater hits that are policed more frequently than perhaps abstract topics of art or history. Therefore, Waters argues that in order to keep Wikipedia entries valid, there must be a revolution from within the open source world that allows for greater accuracy of information. Until this happens, he will continue to ban the use of Wikipedia in his class as a valid academic source of information.
INQUIRY--
So many times in high school I was told "Wikipedia is not an academic source, do not even think of citing it in your paper," and so I never bothered to use Wikipedia as my go to source for infomation. However upon coming to college, so many people are quick to use this online encyclopedia as their "book of knowledge," not even stopping to question whether or not the information being read is actually accurate or valid. Have a homework question you can't answer? Wikipedia it, the answer is usually there. We now live in a society where we hate waiting for answers to questions. The notion of actually going to the library, finding a book, and looking up the answer to a question that we have is laughable - no one wants to take the time to do that. Instead we simply type our inquiry into google, and majority of the time the top site brought forth is from Wikipedia. This sense of exigence, or urgency that comes with having immediate answers literally at our fingertips, comes at a price - accuracy of information or speed at which said information can be received?
An interactive graphic regarding the science and technology activity on wikipedia
QUESTIONS --
- Do you use Wikipedia? If so, what do you use it for?
- Do you think Wikpedia should be "policed" or monitored for information accuracy? Should their be academic qualifications for those who author or edit posts?
- Currently, Google pulls up Wikpedia as a top search result due to popularity and alogrithims. How does this affect an online user's inclination to use Wikipedia?
- With the advent of digital information, will the print encyclopedia and library become osbolete?
6 comments
I always use Wikipedia. It is the fastest source of information for me, so if I need something that is not academically related I do not hesitate to search for it on Wikipedia. Generally, I will search for the information I need, then I will look on a different site to confirm the accuracy. I believe it should be "policed" because most people take what they see as fact and may be citing incorrect information, not realizing how far they are from the truth. By having Wikipedia as a top search result, it influences me to consistently look on Wikipedia first. Because of the flaws of Wikipedia and the possible errors, I do not think print encyclopedias will become obsolete.
I use Wikipedia, frequently. I use the site in FB Chat conversations with friends to find information about past sports heroes, and to validate arguments about historical events. In addition, I use Wikipedia to also gather information on corporations for the many business analyses I perform in economics and management classes (in addition to the company websites, often). Wikipedia should, and is, policed. The internet is not full of ignorant people, though I do admit there are probably quite a few. Those that post on Wikipedia often post sources, and an intelligent user knows how to look for a source on Wikipedia. From the Wikipedia page, you can click on any number of the cited sources that exist in hyper-link form, and you will be taken to an internet based, or digitally based, form of that source. This adds IMMENSELY to the credibility of Wikipedia, and quite often these sources CAN be considered academic sources, even by Waters. For this reason, I don't think individuals need credentials to post others published work in the form of sources. Thanks to Google, Wikipedia has become very popular, and as a result (even according to Walters) receives more "policing" attention, and has become more credible. I do not think it is possible to say that the encyclopedia or the library itself will become obsolete, however I think it is very plausible that the only reason we'll need libraries in the future is to use their computing technology, and I think the only form of encyclopedia that we'll see in the future will be digital (http://www.britannica.com/)
I normally find myself using Wikipedia as my initial source when researching. If I am writing a research paper or need creditable information, I use references used on Wikipedia to find addition information. For me, it provides a single website with enough information to make researching consume less time leaving me with more time to work on my project. Also, I use it if I am looking for a quick answer. Even though it may not be a completely reliable source, I believe that it is more reliable than people give credit. The fact that it can be edited makes the information viewed by Wikipedia users some of the most up-to-date information on the internet.
For me, the only time that I really use Wikipedia is when I am looking up some pop culture reference. If I am doing research for a history class, I NEVER use Wikipedia. The material that I have found is usually lacking or inaccurate. I have to say that it took me two years to even go to the library at the UA, and then it was only to check out books. The books that I checked out were from a research paper, and despite the availability of online resources, none of the research is able to be found online. I can only really get access to it by reading a book. I think that if the topic is really popular, or if you just have a general question to answer, Wikipedia is a good place to go. However, if you are doing a research paper, I wouldn't use it.
Alyssa, the graph of science-related Wikipedia activity that you've posted is super interesting--I wonder: do you think it affirms or refutes what Fallis argues about reliability of information in his article?
Heya i'm for the primary time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to offer something again and aid others like you aided me.
Also visit my weblog: big butt fat porn :: ::
Post a Comment