Wikipedia was brought up in class the other day in regards to the discussion on the internet and the readings by Clark and Dreyfus. Since I do not know that much about wikipedia, I decided to research it a little more. According to their website, wikipedia is a “multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project.” The word ‘project’ throws me off a little in that it is something that is done for fun on someone’s spare time, but it has gotten to be very well-known. Since it was introduced in 2001, wikipedia has grown to be one of the largest reference websites on the internet. However, the content is completely written by volunteers and can be edited at any time someone decides they don’t like what’s on there. This possibility that any certain article could be completely false makes me question the authority of this website. However, after the article that was given in class entitled, “Internet encyclopedias go head to head” was very eye-opening. Encyclopedia Britannica has experts in given fields that help write and edit the entries but and wikipedia is done by volunteers. However, the accuracy is much better than I thought it would ever be. The study that was conducted for the two encyclopedias showed that the average entry in wikipedia contained just around four inaccurate statements but in Encyclopedia Britannica had three per entry. This is astonishing, and it definitely changes my mind in regards for me trusting it. I always disregarded wikipedia as an actual legitimate source, but now I am thinking twice. I doubted the information that was on the internet (with the exception of electronic journals) but wikipedia is changing my mind around. The internet is actually allowing people to express their knowledge in any subject they feel close to, and surprisingly aren’t as wrong as I thought.
4.30.07
Brandon Wilkins | 19-Apr-07 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
That is an interesting fact that you found comparing the two resources. One of the reasons I find Wikipedia easy is that I can use it being disconnected from the rest of the world… By this I mean I don’t need to actually go to the library and look up a resource. Instead I can simply use a few key strokes and find what I am looking for.
I had a professor for my senior design last semester that said Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable resources because he saw one inaccurate article. To put this into context, it was relevant to his area of research. I replied to this claim by asking why he didn’t correct the entry, and he said that it wouldn’t make a difference. Lastly, my claim is that if more people keep faith in Wikipedia and correct entries they come across, it has the potential to cover more topics and more in depth than any encyclopedia.
Angela Kinsella | 25-Apr-07 at 12:07 am | Permalink
I do agree with how ridiculously easy it is to go to wikipedia and find exactly what you are looking for. Honestly, when I do research on a topic I never go to the library for sources unless it is required by a teacher. Really the only purpose of a library to me is a quiet place to study or rent movies for free.
In regards to your professor who hates wikipedia, he sounds like the type that distrusts the internet in general. Also, why would he think he couldn’t make a difference in wikipedia? If he went and corrected the article he would obviously be making a difference and teaching its readers the correct information instead of false information. People need to realize that although wikipedia has its faults, that is why you are allowed to change it to make sure it becomes more and more accurate.
Annie Werly | 25-Apr-07 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
Wikipedia is compiled by users who have the hobby of uploading information on the web. That is what they like to do. They compile their information based on other encyclopedias or scholarly texts as well as their own personal experiences with said topic and voila- a page is born!
Wikipedia is a great source however, I never cite it as a source because I know that most professors/teachers find it unacceptable. I think it is a great place to start off research and find out where the next step will lead you, but I would advise against citing it- at least until it becomes more “legit” in the world of scholars.
Danielle Foster | 25-Apr-07 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
In a comment on another post about Wikipedia I mentioned something about Wikipedia and schools and I think this goes along with the fact that they call this site a ‘project.’ Imagine if every underpriveliged school was given one computer with internet access. Many of these schools cannot afford to stock a complete, current, up-to-date set of encyclopedias. Wikipedia would provide these students with up-to-date, accurate information about all kinds of subjects for almost nothing. Just imagine if everyone donated an old computer to a poor school and the state funded internet access for these schools. Sites like Wikipedia would alleviate the need for buying new encyclopedias every year or ever. The fact that Wikipedia is referred to as a ‘project’ just shows how much potential it truly has.
Brian Horn | 25-Apr-07 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
I agree that I did not originally think that wikipedia was really worthwhile. It seemed like it could not be that accurate because of the fact that it is completely done by volunteers. The fact that there are only about four inaccuracies compared to about three for the Encyclopedia Britannica is suprising to me, but makes me think that perhaps the content on wikipedia is better than I had previously thought. After looking at some topics on wikipedia that I have a pretty good understanding of, it seemed to be pretty accurate as far as I could tell. the fact that wikipedia is constantly reviewed by others who also know about the subject usually means that the information will be for the most part accurate and as complete as possible.
Erin Murphy | 25-Apr-07 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
The fact that a publication as old and updated as the Encyclopedia Britannica still has inaccuracies that frequently increases my faith in Wikipedia.
I learned a little bit about the Britannica last summer reading a book titled “The Know-It-All”, a non-fiction book describing one man’s quest to read the entire set of encyclopedias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Know-It-All:_One_Man’s_Humble_Quest_to_Become_the_Smartest_Person_in_the_World
(Read it if you get the chance. It’s really hilarious!)
The Britannica, if I remember right, is written by experts. And I mean *the* experts. Einstein wrote science articles for the encyclopedia. It’s easy to get star-struck by this, but really, the people who edit wikipedia articles are probably just as passionate about the subjects they write for and edit as Einstein was. The only difference is they don’t get money or glory for their contribution.
Krystal Kniep | 26-Apr-07 at 9:12 am | Permalink
I agree with Annie. I believe Wikipedia is a great tool. The people that update information usually find their information from credited sources and scholarly articles. I definitely would not cite it in any papers, but I think it is very useful in quickly finding exactly what you are looking for. I think it is a great tool for everyone to use, and I like the fact how everyone can update new and useful information.
Kerry Phelan | 26-Apr-07 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
After reading this post I was very suprised. I always knew that wikipedia was a site where anyone can post their ideas/definitions on a topic. Knowing that, I was always very hesitant to trust the things that were posted. When Angella discovered that Encylopedia Britannica had more errors than Wikipedia I was shocked. Now I will be a little more cautious and observent when researching topics through both the encyclopedia and on wikipedia.
John Rooney | 26-Apr-07 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
I am glad that you have a new found faith in the internet as a reliable source. I have this to add which I hope will strengthen this feeling in regards to Wikipedia and also other websites. It is very possible that the information found on Wikipedia could be false, but we have no reason not to trust Wikipedia because it has not given us any reason to do so. Even if Wikipedia started to be full of bad information, it would be inherently obvious and we would simply stop using it.
Ryan Marshall | 26-Apr-07 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
I too have found newfound trust in wikipedia recently. I just found out it is ranked closely behind encyclopedia Britannica. Because of this, and because of the amount of people posting on it time and time again, the collection of the people is bound to get it right in the end. The site is so well known and used for a reason, and the correctness and wide variety of material are that.
Jeffery Villalobos | 26-Apr-07 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
Because people are constantly editing wikipedia it seems like a viable source for information. i like to use it for certain things just to get some quick facts on subjects that really arent that important, for example looking up information about the people on “the hills” so that i could laugh at them (yes i know i am an idiot for watching that show but it makes me laugh so much i cant help myself). i would not use wikipedia as a source for a paper, even if i wasnt going to actually use it in the paper. i might use it to gain a quick reference on a subject, but i would trust what most would consider a “credile” source before things on wikipedia. it just makes more sense to give a credilbe source a higher quality of information over something not backed by scholars and experts on wikipedia. it happens. but i totally dont disagree with it either. it does give some quick information on subjects, but it is not every detail about a subject. it a good quick reference.