I was surprised and excited to read the article concerning Wikipedia in class the other day. I discovered the site sometime last summer and have been an avid user ever since. Come to find out it is right behind encyclopedias such as Britannica in accuracy of print. The whole idea of a ‘free’ encyclopedia, updated constantly, for the people, and by the people was in genius. It seems to me that most of the people against the site are scholars concerned with reduced income because of this free access site. They claim to be concerned with the accuracy of information on the pages, but I don’t see how their words could be anymore accurate than the millions of users that check the site regularly. I understand that with free editing it is impossible to keep things completely accurate, but I feel that within time the site could surpass encyclopedia Britannica.
I don’t claim to be an expert in any particular subject, but I know many people out there who take their interests and hobbies to an extreme. This site is perfect for them, it gives them a sense of community and importance. The article from TIME that we read a few months back rung true in this Wikipedia case. Your average Joe Schmo could know just as much about global warming as an acclaimed expert, people haven’t been given the credit they deserve in the past, but this is the time and place to shine.
I really enjoy the site because I can do searches on just about anything. The other week it was grass roots movement, and from that page it allowed me to search many other related topics. Because of its accessibility it has a wider range of topics to search from and many different contributors with different information to include. The idea of information overload could easily relate to this topic, but as we mentioned, we have gotten really good at filtering out information that is irrelevant to us, and I truly believe this site has done great things for both the user and contributor.
Kimberly Koch | 23-Apr-07 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
I think bringing up information overload when talking about Wikipedia is very interesting. I agree that it does not seem to make a huge difference because we have gotten good at filtering out un-needed information. I also think Wikipiedia and other sites help stop information overload by just having links to other information. This way we don’t have to click on it and obtain more information. This helps us choose to avoid the overload.
Jeremy Mcguire | 23-Apr-07 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
I agree wikipedia is a wonderful tool. Even though it can be changed daily it still is a wonderful tool that is free. All these scholars have such a problem with it because of its accuracy issues but when I am writing a paper I use wikipedia as a base to get background information not as my number one source. Plus encyclopedias are too expensive and out off date to keep up with. Overall wikipedia is a wonderful tool just like the internet to gather huge amounts of information at your finger tips.
Angela Kinsella | 24-Apr-07 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
I was really surprised when I read the accuracy numbers of wikipedia compared to Britannica. I also only use wikipedia as a starter source of information, I read about my topic to get more acquainted with it, and from there I know how to narrow my search and get just the information I need. I don’t blame the scholars disliking this free encyclopedia that is only slightly less accurate than the real thing. But with how fast our society changes everyday, maybe the old idea of encyclopedias also needs to adapt. I know windows used to have encyclopedia software (Encarta, I believe), but it became outdated just like the book versions. I am not sure if it exists already or not, but encyclopedias should learn a thing from wikipedia and be constantly updating the information onto a website and if there is concern about the free access, they could charge to be a member of this type of
accurate, up to the minute updated information that society craves for everyday.
Ashley Swarts | 25-Apr-07 at 10:51 am | Permalink
I was also initially suprised at te accuracy numbers of wikepedia compared to Britannica, but then when I though about it more it actually makes sense. Wikepedia is constantly updated by millions of people, while Britannanica doesn’t have a fraction of that many people working on it. Although Britannica has “scholars” working on it, people who take interest in and update Wikepedia must obviously have interest and knowledge in their specific topic so there is a good chance that they are probably “scholarly” too.
Annie Werly | 25-Apr-07 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Wikipedia is great but you need to be sure to double check the accuracy at times. However, this can mostly be avoided because if a user questions the material that is being stated as “fact”, they can put up a “flag” which puts a disclaimer at the top of the webpage to warn users that this information may in fact be questionably correct and they are looking for an expert in the area to correct or approve the information. The fact that Wikipedia is close in accuracy to Britannica may be shocking, yet is probable. I know a lot of kids who just mess around on Wikipedia and some who even update pages or change them to resolve errors. I think this puts the information in the hands of the people which is great since that is what the internet is mostly used for anyway.
Daniel Estrada | 25-Apr-07 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
For the record, we are all adults. No need to censor yourself.
Ashley Graham | 25-Apr-07 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Wikipedia is a valuable online resource. It is generally accurate, and I believe it is relatively easy to tell when it is not. For example, when someone replaced an entire article on JFK with “…is a fag,” it was easy to tell that that was not truthful information. I think that as long as people use common sense with Wikipedia and other online resources, the information which they gather will be mostly reliable and accurate.
Danielle Foster | 25-Apr-07 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
I love Wikipedia. It has always bothered me how teachers will not allow Wikipedia as a source for papers. I was so happy to see how accurate Wikipedia really is. Whenever I write a paper I look up the subject on Wikipedia just to really familiarize myself with the subject. I think that its great that there is a site out there open to all people with internet access to learn about things. Wikipedia has so much potential. Think about inner-city schools who cannot afford an entire set of encyclopedias. If they could get just one computer then these underpriviliged students could have access to information about all kinds of subjects. I am a huge proponent of Wikipedia.
Wes Gotschall | 26-Apr-07 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Wikipedia is useful. I would be lying if I said I haven’t used it as a quick reference. I used to use Encarta because it was free but now only select articles are free. I would think Microsoft could loosen the purse strings a bit but I guess not. Its not hard to tell what has been added to Wikipedia that clearly isn’t true. I’m even published on Wikipedia. Search Champaign, Illinois and you’ll find that it is home to the world’s largest steam factory. I live on Oak street and if you’ve ever been on Oak street you’ll notice the steam factory. Sure some irresponsible people (me) ruin the credibility of Wikipedia, but it can be very useful when you think you are right about something but want a quick reference to check your facts.
Ryan Marshall | 26-Apr-07 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
I agree, wikipedia is amazing. It is very easy to find exactly what you are looking for. It is also easily the most broad scope of information I’ve ever come across. The idea that anyone can add to or change anything is a great idea for expanding the site but also brings about the possibility of being incorrect. This is remedied however by the rate at which the site is changed. With so many people adding to articles, one can be almost completely sure that what they’re getting is correct.
Erica Yuenger | 26-Apr-07 at 5:35 pm | Permalink
As I was reading the comments on this post, I thought of the game Balderdash. Has anyone ever played? The object of the game is to fool people into thinking you know something that you really don’t. You are either given a word, a person, an acronym, a movie title or a law and you have to create a definition, a description, a company or organization, or anything else that sounds like it might describe that word,acronym, etc. So you make up a bunch of stuff that sounds really smart and try to get people to vote for your entry. Just got me thinking that it could be fun to take some obscure object and create an entry on Wikipedia that is complete bullshit but may sound credible. I don’t think this happens very often on Wikipedia, but for someone who is bored and needs a creative outlet, it ould be done.
Ryan Riordan | 26-Apr-07 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
If people don’t consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, it can’t be said that Wikipedia is not a good place to start. Any time you need to start a research paper you’re not going to go and just start looking into a book or scholarly journal, you will initially look to a shorter version of the same material that will give you a good idea of where to start. I don’t think I have ever started a big paper without first consulting a source like Wikipedia. I am not afraid of people putting false information on the site just to screw with you. That seems a little radical to believe that that happens a lot. Just as the Global Warming example that was mentioned. I find it ironic that the spokesperson and supposed expert on the subject, Al Gore, lives in a house that consumes 12 times the average amount of energy that most houses use. I know that doesnt necessarily go along with the Wikipedia argument, I just thought it was interesting. It’s true though that you can find reliable information on sites like WIkipedia, and though I would not use it entirely for a project i feel comfortable that it is a reliable place to start looking at information.
Amanda Jakstas | 26-Apr-07 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
For some reason, I have always had a negative impression of Wikipedia. I don’t know if it’s because teachers would always strongly discourage it or if it’s because it may be an unreliable source. With that said, I never really use it, especially for school purposes. I understand how many may think that it isn’t credible because of the multiple authors. However, knowing that there is a group of people who edit and monitor the content, makes it more trustworthy.
Tariq Mohammed | 26-Apr-07 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
The common misconception is that wikipedia contains numerous articles that are filled with nonsense and incorrect information. While there are some articles that fit this description, for the most part the articles are generally accurate. I can see why teachers don’t accept it as a ‘true’ source, but I could put up an argument with it. Last time I heard, one of the wikipedia founders was going to set something up which only expert authors could edit.
Chris Paolinetti | 26-Apr-07 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
I happen to love wikipedia; the way the system is set up actually ensures that articles are accurate, as instead of a small group of editors researching an encyclopedia (as in the case of Britannica, Encarta, etc), the entire public can edit it, and there are software programs which will repair any vandalism, thus keeping the publication much more up-to-date than a once-a-year release.
Jeffery Villalobos | 26-Apr-07 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
One of my friends is in love with wikipedia. he references it probably about 15 times a day for one matter or another. for the most part it has had pretty accurate information to the relative matter. i just think that you have to have scholarly information if you are going to do a research paper. i mean think about someone who is doing research for a Phd or a masters degree. think they are going to be referencing wikipedia as a source for whatever matter it is they writing about? are people in undergrad or even high school for that matter, are they going to be a ble to reference it? i am not saying that it isnt a viable resource for looking things up, i am just saying that for school matters it just isnt going to happen. maybe in the future it might but as of right now the bias against wikipedia is too strong to consider this a scholarly site.
Adam Domanico | 26-Apr-07 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
I, along with most other people, was surprised when I heard how accurate Wikapedia is. Why is this such a shock to people though? I guess people have no faith in the public’s concern with having accurate information. Whay is this so? I think it is because of Dreyfus’ idea that our world is slowly slipping into a state of complete nihilism. He believes that people do not really care about what is actually right or wrong. Before reading this article on Wikipedia I completely agreed with him. Now, however, there is doubt in my mind. The general public must actually be interested in the truth, which I was shocked to learn since the news seems to only portray what sells and not what is the truth. Maybe as a generation we are slipping into nihilism, but as a society we must still be interested in the truth. So whether Wikipedia is a good thing or not, at least it gives hope to our future success.
Jaren Gaddi | 26-Apr-07 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
I’m pretty much on the same page with everyone else here. I was very wary of Wikipedia at first and its accuracy, but like many of you guys I began to use it more and more as a “scouting report” for a topic I was trying to study or write a paper for. And while anyone is allowed to contribute to an article, these contributions are somewhat monitored for accuracy, and they can be flagged (as Annie said before).
I guess one of the issues surrounding Wikipedia is that people claim its inaccuracy because of its lack of being published and printed on paper. Publishing companies read through and approve material being run through their printing presses. They don’t just allow “anyone” to publish with their name. Encyclopedias such as Britannica, which require rigorous review and editing before publishing, may argue that Wiki is not credible because it is not examined with the same “fine tooth comb” as theirs - though the information is very similar
Stehpanie Prather | 27-Apr-07 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Can I just say that I love your utilization of the * in the title of this post.
I have to say that I, too, believe that wikipedia is the sh*t, and I’m glad that we are allowed to freely express ourselves in a more informal setting on this website.
I think that like wikipedia becomes more and more refined as its users contribute more information, I think my understanding of the material is that must better because I can have so much more interaction about it with my classmates.