classrooms over the use of Wikipedia as a reference in research papers. Regardless of what most scholars think, the time has come that society accepts this new type of software as a credible resource of information in our educational journey. Wikipedia should be accepted as a valid reference in the scholarly world because of its overall popularity and growth, accuracy, and potential to become the new face of research worldwide. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger created Wikipedia in 2001 in order to give
and as the number one source to go to for information, the question of its accuracy and quality still raises doubts. Wikipedia, with its abundance of articles in more than 200 different languages, most people go to to Wikipedia because of its convenience and the sites wide variety of non- fiction topics (Ashman “Students Debate Value of Wikipedia as Reliable Source”). Also, Wikipedia gives tutorials to aid in the process of editing and the way the article should be structured, formatted, and the style
Badke (2008) begins his article reminding us that Wikipedia although controversial is still the online encyclopedia of choice by 36% of the United States population according to Pew Internet & American Life Project’s findings. (As quoted by Badke, para. 1) Even if the public likes it, though, for the most part academic circles do not. Many professors will not allow their students to use Wikipedia. These professors think Wikipedia is trivial, untrustworthy, insulting, and too often completely incorrect
Wikipedia has been the subject of considerable debate for some time now. Some think the site is not quotable, while others argue that it is. Many teachers do not accept Wikipedia pages as a source of information, because anybody can add information to such pages. However, this policy of everybody being able to add has changed, and the present-day Wikipedia team works hard to prevent inaccuracies on their website. Wikipedia pages nowadays indicate the sources of information. Moreover, Wikipedia pages
The article that I have chosen to compare for my paper is on Socrates. Often Wikipedia is regarded as an unreliable source for research when compared to other online references like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, there is actually is difference that affects the scholarly research from the information provided on Wikipedia. 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
Against Wikipedia 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. “As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation,” said Don Wyatt, chair of the department. “Even though Wikipedia may have
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. By August 8, 2001, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[30] On September 25, 2001, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[31] And by the end of 2001 it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[32] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down
of these inappropriate websites is Wikipedia because people cannot trust information, essays, and articles that were written by unknown authors. For academic writing, students must have accurate information about authors and their studies in order to use those articles. They cannot provide an acceptable academic paper if they use non-academic recourses such as Wikipedia and other blogs on the Internet. Even though some think that college students can use Wikipedia as an accurate resource, I believe
Wikipedia is a frequent resource used by students who would much rather click on the first result given by a search engine such as google, than dwell on multiple books for hours. The main idea behind Wikipedia is to be a “free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it”, where volunteers constantly create impressive articles in countless topics. Although this is an idea was have learned to rely on; the open-editing policy they assess, where writers regardless of their background
Undoubtedly, the convenient accessing and easy searching of Wikipedia have changed the way people learn about an unfamiliar topic. Before people have Wikipedia in their daily life, they have to turn the encyclopedia page after page for seeking knowledge. However, now people can easily search for any information on Wikipedia. Even though it is not a reliable source for academic research, people still can gain some particularly useful materials from Wikipedia for general knowledge; therefore, it is quite efficient
The Usefulness of Wikipedia Is Wikipedia a convenient source for its users on a daily basis? According to my findings in the video, the answer is yes! In the video, The Truth According to Wikipedia, conducted by IJsbrand van Valen, Wikipedia’s pros and cons are discussed. This paper will explain how Wikipedia works, user’s views on the online encyclopedia, as well as how viewers can benefit from the constantly changing information being presented throughout the site. Wikipedia is a free online
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
Setting itself apart, Wikipedia focused on substantive content development instead of technology (Garber), providing a mass collection of organized and easily searchable information. Containing over 27 billion words in 40 million articles and written in 293 languages (Wikipedia), it has far surpassed any other traditional means of data presentation. This great success is based and relies on its users to add, edit, and delete articles, however it does not require users to provide proof or research
Teachers don't think that Wikipedia is a accurate resource for information. Technically, the teachers are correct, but logically, they are horribly wrong. What most people do not seem to understand is that "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it."(add source) There are thousands of people around the world who are either making a new page, rewriting or correcting information, or adding information at any given time during the day. Wikipedia was officially launched
reason why Wikipedia is so unreliable there are several dimensions of information quality: accuracy, completeness, currency, comprehensibility, and so on (cf. Fox, Levitin & Redman, 1994). The information suggested that the Wikipedia fails on several of these dimensions. However, people that acquire knowledge from Wikipedia are not as comprehensible and complete as we might expect an encyclopedia to be. There are three reasons to think that significant amount of information on Wikipedia might be inaccurate
Wikipedia, an online information center, has significantly changed the face of encyclopedias and scholarly journals over the last ten years. It is quickly taking books, journals, and money out of the equation for research. Wikipedia has created a new way to gather information, social network, and do research. Although Wikipedia has its positive uses it is not always a reliable source and is best used as a starting point for research. In March 2000 Wikipedia started out as Nupedia.com with a review
When it comes to Wikipedia, most of us will agree that Wikipedia has one of the most largest and popular general reference work on the Internet. Where this agreement ends, however, is on the spectrum of obtaining believable articles and sources through Wikipedia. Where some people are convinced that it is completely ok to do the majority of their research through Wikipedia. Where other people support it because they can edit anything on the website and create new articles which comes from an unreliable
Scott Smoot, authors of the article “Wikipedia Friend, Not Foe”, “Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity about writing for a real audience, meeting genre expectations, establishing credibility, revising for clarity and purpose, and entering public discussions about the nature of truth, accuracy, and neutrality”(www.ncte.org). Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that provides information on almost any topic. Understanding the various advantages that Wikipedia provides users with, makes it easy to
The arguably largest and most used online encyclopedia in the world is Wikipedia. This online encyclopedia is articles written/edited by anonymous sources. This created a new website called WikiScanner that allows us to pinpoint and trace corporate computer networks activity in Wikipedia edits. Although WikiScanner reveals corporations and their involvements in biased edits on Wikipedia the real problem lies within Wikipedia itself in its organizational structure and the websites choice of anonymous
The author Nicholson Baker wrote a passage about how wikipedia has come to what it is today. He starts out, in a very comical manner, about the main thing of wikipedia is to search and find definitions for any word, term, meaning, and so fourth of things that had been defined thus far on the newly developed website. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where any and everybody is the author. That was the main attraction at first for the website. If one has a very profound love for, as Baker mentions in