The article we received in class about Wikipedia really caught my eye. I use Wikipedia often when doing research for class or to just simply learn about different topics out of curiosity. Wikipedia is an open source for public to post entries and edit entries as well. The article focuses on comparing the accuracies of the entries in Britannica and Wikipedia. In each set of testing, Wikipedia had a greater number of inaccuracies than Britannica, although not by much. In the first one, 42 entries were tested and only 4 inaccuracies were found. That number is very impressive considering that these entries are not posted only by scholars or experts, but just normal people. It was mentioned by a former Britannica editor Robert McHenry that with open editing process, reliability cannot be ensured. Unless one is searching through a valid source such as an online version of a journal, errors are going to be present everywhere. The internet is a world wide web without any restrictions, but it is our responsibility to judge which information to trust for its validity and what not to. Of course a student will not be allowed to cite wikipedia in his paper because it is not a valid scholarly post. This does not mean that same student cannot gain an overall understanding of the topic through it, and then further research through books or journals.
This point goes back to Dreyfus’s argument that computers will be inferior to libraries since the internet does not post the relevance of articles in a hierarchy. I agree with Dreyfus in that we should be more concerned with quality and not quantity, but with millions of articles posted, we should be intelligent enough to trust one article over another just by looking at who or what site posted it. Although Dreyfus would completely disagree with the idea of Wikipedia, I believe that it has become a very useful tool mainly because of its efficiency. In a way, it can just be looked as a more reliable source since it is edited and updated so frequently. Encyclopedia’s are updated every year which makes them more outdated than just using Wikipedia. With us being completely relied on the internet as not only a knowledge resource, but a communication resource, it would be difficult for us to avoid sources like Wikipedia.
Jennifer Crabill | 19-Apr-07 at 11:36 pm | Permalink
I would like to stress an advantage that was mentioned in this post that Wikipedia has over other sources. A major benefit of looking up a topic using this source is that the site is very often updated. Yes, Wikipedia is not the greatest source of credible information if you are writing a term paper. But if you are just looking for historical information or are just curious about a certain topic, Wikipedia usually (almost always, in my experience) provides a broad scope of accurate information. I watched the two-part television series “Elizabeth” last weekend with my mom. We were curious as to which wife of Henry the 8th gave birth to Elizabeth’s brother, Edward. I went to Wiki and found the answer. PLUS-it provides links to other relative information! (Dreyfus would highly object.)
Brandon Wilkins | 22-Apr-07 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
I almost feel that Wikipedia is a more reliable resource based on the fact that it is known that it doesnt always hold true information. I used to think that the Encyclopedia Britannica only held true information and was marketed in that way. To me, it is assuring that it is possible for anyone to contribute to the articles on Wikipedia, and that they are in fact checked for reliability (a friend of mine posted a bogus article and was later removed). Another reason I like Wikipedia is that it cites viable resources through the use of hyperlinks.
Ashley Graham | 25-Apr-07 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
I think that all the debate between the internet and its reliability and validity boils down to common sense. As long as someone is logical and reasonable while using the internet for research purposes, the data which they collect should be true. Some websites are more correct than others, and this is well known. With this information in mind, people should keep an eye out for fake info, and be able to make an informed decision about whether or not it is true. People need to understand that a lot of what is on the internet is opinion based knowledge, and then they need to derive their own conclusions from these.
John Rooney | 26-Apr-07 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
I have always known that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source when writing a paper, but the idea of this never really hit me until now. It is quite absurd that Wikipedia isn’t considered a “scholarly source” when it has been proven to be quite accurate. Does this failure to recognize Wikipedia as credible take away from its validity?
Jeffery Villalobos | 26-Apr-07 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
The subjectivity of the Time article is the reason why you still cannot call it a “scholarly” source. i like wikipedia, but it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside when we read something from a “credible” source. we feel like it is the absolute truth. it some cases we are just reading an expert’s opinion about a subject. financial advisors make recommendations about what to invest in. it is, for the most part, their opinion about what is going to happen witha certain stock, their beliefs about your risk aversion, and the amount of capital you have available. but you are going to listen to their advice because they are professionals. this is the reason we like to believe things in britannica over things in wikipedia. the professional background of the opinions on the subject matter in britannica makes you trust it more.
Stehpanie Prather | 27-Apr-07 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
I think there is likely little difference between wikipedia and a “credible” source. Like we learned in class wikipedia is actually quite reliable.
The only thing that makes wikipedia so “unscholarly” is because it is new and unestablished. I bet in a few years it could be considered a more scholarly source when academia realizes the internet can provide authoritative information