Wikipedia is a credible source
When people and school kids are writing papers on a daily basis they struggle about whether Wikipedia is a credible source or not. Along with rather they should cite it. It is a good source because it has many different points of views from many different people. The next reason is that it’s a good place to start the research. It lets things be edited or changed as time moves on and changes.
Now we may have all used Wikipedia once in our life time. I have used it serval times as I found out how handy it comes when you have just a quick question or need a whole data base to find information. It is user friendly has all the things that you or a person needs and relatively easy to cite. Now we all have been
…show more content…
It is good/credible because all of those viewpoints. That leads to all those peoples first hand encounters instead of a article that has been typed up and edited. The website also monitors what people put on there and what people have the rights to post on the cite. Also, those peoples post are 99% first hand encounters or can relate to what is of topic.
The next part backing up the claim is how good of a place it is to start research for something. The reason being for that is all of the different topics ideas or ways to look at things that might be of topic for research. According to the article " Wikipedia doesn’t suck" they said its great place to start because they have a page for anything and everything. It also is a great page for startup facts and data on a subject.
The last piece of evidence to back-up the claim is that it changes with time and is very malleable. That is hug concept because not a single thing is truly set in stone and thing change and update so there should be a source that does to and that source would be Wikipedia. For example, say a famous person dies Wikipedia is truly the only source that would be up to date very quickly on fact like that. With the constant updating it allows Wikipedia to stay really relevant to topics and
As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia. While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it.
...ie, 31 (1) 27-49.Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1662–1674. doi:10.1002/asi.20870
...addition, it provides a massive amount of historical information about the topic in a reliable, non-biased fashion through real documents. Lastly, the good aspects of the website dramatically outweigh any bad aspects of the site. It is a reliable source of learning history because in today’s society, the most accessible way to learn history is through the Internet. There is no way to go back in time to witness history, so it’s imperative that historians utilize the good sources for learning history online, like the one analyzed today about the Salem Witch Trials.
He described in detail about the early days of Wikipedia, its challenges and finally overcoming those challenges. And he did not shy away to declare his delight over this unprecedented success of Wikipedia. “Wikipedia flourished while traditional, well-respected print publications, not least Encyclopedia Britannica, languished”, he
The best thing about Wikipedia is that it concisely provides topic wise systematic information on every topic for ‘short and quick reference’ of the summary on our search topic, a distinguishable and easy to note introduction. We also credit it for providing information in a very systematic and orderly manner and is quite too detailed in providing information and pictures on an article. Wikipedia is a good source for starting with basic information as it gives a summary in the beginning that almost gives the reader an approximate knowledge of what he is reading.
The common man/woman writes Wikipedia. There is no peer review, there are no editors, and there are no revision dates. In fact, Wikipedia encourages and advises its users to verify the information presented in its content. One positive characteristic Wikipedia has is its currency. An article in another encyclopedia may take months to write, but contributors often write articles on Wikipedia within a month of the occurrence of an event. Another positive feature is its popularity. Millions of users use Wikipedia. It provides dependable material, resolves their questions, and besides, Wikipedia is easy to use.
Besides, it provides the process of revision and
Are assertions in the source based on reliable evidence? Are sources cited? How are you able to tell? They do list where they get their info from within the paragraphs or quotes.
Johnson, Kirsten A., and Susan Wiedenbeck. "Enhancing Perceived Credibility Of Citizen Journalism Web Sites." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86.2 (2009): 332-348.
As technology use continues to expand, it is crucial for users to distinguish from the good and bad sources. Deciding whether information found during research is right or wrong can seem difficult. However,
Good Sources In seconds, anyone can find anything they’ve ever wanted to know on the internet. With just a few clicks of a button, one can be revealed to a whole new realm of possibilities or answers. One can find the answers they’ve been searching for, but who’s to say the source is reliable? It is important to understand that anyone can put anything on the internet.
This also led the way for newspaper advertisements or political campaigns publications. Before the Internet or television people relied on the newspaper for information. Now, through the Internet, an infinite amount of knowledge is readily available at your
Now that we are living in an ever changing world, technology is viewed as the most resourceful tool in keeping up with the pace. Without the use of technology, communication would be limited to using mail for delivery and encyclopedias for research. Although technology has improved the way we communicate and find information for research, the information is not always valid. Unfortunately, for those of us who use the internet for shopping, research, or reading articles of personal interest the information is not treated the same as a your magazine or book. While such literature is reviewed by an editorial staff, internet literature or information can be published by anyone. In order to reap the full benefit of having the use of technology for any purpose, there are five basic criteria’s one must keep in mind as an evaluating tool for deciding whether or not the particular website is a reliable source for information.
The volume of the information that you will find on the internet is outstanding. For every topic that pops in your mind, then you will sure be able to find it on the internet, because there is always someone that has written about it. The internet can offer you a series of different perspectives on a single topic. As a matter of fact, you can even connect to an online encyclopedia. A lot of them offer you a subscription service that helps you search through the full text of the encyclopedia.
It advances education substantially, saves many lives, allows communication throughout the world instantly, organizes so much information that is easily accessible, and helps with innovation and creativity in humans. Sure there are negatives to it, but what really matters is how much the positives and negatives weigh out. It has advanced the human race so far above any other race on Earth that we have trouble keeping up with it. The beauty behind it is that it can never stop advancing. There will always be that more that can be upgraded or invented, and it’s only getting better. What will be next? Flying cars powered by wind power? Just wait to see where we will be by the year