Article: Can Wikipedia Make the Grade?
Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia that is open to everyone and anyone. A wiki webpage is one that anyone can contribute to and change at any time. This posse’s the question, just how reliable is Wikipedia? Many have their own opinions including Alexander M.C. Halavais, an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac University. He has spent hours searching through Wikipedia. To his surprise, he changed a few little details that could have easily been over looked but also could change major facts that were very important to the information. Impressively the very next day the information was changed back to the normal correct form. Wikipedia has numerous people checking on everyday updates to make sure that the information is true and not a hoax. This makes the web site more reliable. Mr. Halavais was now recorded as a troll and was asked not to post on Wikipedia any more.
Wikipedia has been making a big statement on the world. Could this online encyclopedia be the new source of information? In 2005, the journal Nature compared the accuracy of scientific articles in Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The staff chose many different articles and compared on misleading information, mistakes and other incorrect problems. Too many peoples surprise the two where not far off. In the Britannica, they found an average of three errors on every article, while on a same article on Wikipedia showed an average of four mistakes.
I feel that Wikipedia is becoming more reliable than in the past. Wikipedia is an advantage to have; it is constantly posting new updates all the time. A regular encyclopedia doesn’t have the advantage of making updates everyday or fixing mistakes as easily. There is still a great chance of false information being posted on Wikipedia all the time but it’s much easier now to check the reliability of this information by looking a little more into depth. Wikipedia is tying to get scholars to post on the site more, by doing this the site will have much more reliable information. Some things are still not as reliable as an actual encyclopedia. In one example in the article states that some information was false so they tried deleting and fixing it but the very next day it was back to normal. The staff of Wikipedia believes their information is correct because it was written in a book. This information that they have posted my have sources saying it is correct, but this information may just be someone’s opinion or biases. I feel that Wikipedia, in some aspects, is just as reliable as any other source. It is important not to always believe what you read first, but to double check to make sure the information is the same else where as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.
ReplyDeleteBritannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.
It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.