Love it or hate it, Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites on the Internet. Spend a few minutes on wikipedia to explore each the following topics:
Wikipedia (look up “wikipedia” on the wikipedia site)
Darfur
Assisted Suicide
Dick Cheney
Based on a quick review of these topics, do you agree or disagree with the debate about the accuracy of the information found on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Provide a short explanation.
Advertisement
I believe that the accuray of information on this website is not equal to that that exists in an encyclopedia. Anyone can post on this website and edit information. For example, a alrge amount of information was just removed from “Darfur” because Ben Cohen is not considered a primary source. He had stated an inappropriate POV (point of view), merely his perspective, on a particular subject. This type of information is publicy on wikipedia and only removed when someone edits this. I would not feel confident using information from this site;moreover, I would only use information from this site if it matched another source. For example, if I were to state that the population of Darfur were 74 million I would be incorrect – there was a typographical error, should be 7.4 million. Yes, errors can occur in books but are less likely after much review and the public can not post in a book as they can on wikipedia.
The following 2 warnings are on the “assisted suicide” page: This article or section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. This article does not cite any references or sources.
This manifests the fact that the accuracy of information is not concrete. Additionaly, this proves why I do not believe wikipedia to be a reliable source. I feel that any form of written material must be researched and thoroughly studied to be a reliable source.
Comment by Jamie Miller — September 15, 2008 @ 2:07 am |
I believe that this website does provide some helpful and somewhat factual information on topics you might want to examine but, I don’t feel that it is accurate enough of a source to use when you really need the facts. I feel that in order to fully research a topic you have to use sources that are legitimately accurate and dependable, Wikipedia is not one of these sources. It is merely a website that does offer information about topics but, has many errors and is based on people’s opinions and insights. I feel that the accuracy of Wikipedia is minimal considering it is edited and written by individuals, anyone can edit the information to have it changed turning facts into more or less opinions.
When viewing Darfur there was a scarce amount of information and leads me to believe that if I were to depend on a site like Wikipedia when referencing for a research assignment. When looking up assisted suicide there is a warning that is shown that states the article has no cited references or sources and this article or section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. This just proves that I wouldn’t be able to depend on Wikipedia for detailed and ideal answers or accurate information that I would be able to depend on for a research assignment.
Comment by Angelina — September 15, 2008 @ 8:05 am |
of course i agree with the debate that wikipedia is incompetent with the issue of accuracy. even on its own wikipedia article it states “Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy are also an issue.” obviously!
Comment by audrey — September 15, 2008 @ 5:56 pm |
Just the fact that after every article there is the edit button is a big hint that you never know what your going to get. There are so many articles in Wikipedia that it is impossible to weed out all the junk that gets put up, especially because there is no standard in who can alter the articles. It couldn’t be the only reference used, but it could be a starting point in finding terms or topics. Just need to take the information with a grain of salt, and temper it with a trip the the library.
Comment by Jennifer Medrano — September 16, 2008 @ 5:48 am |
While the content of Wikipedia is variable at best, Wikipedia does have an assessment department that uses a “quality scale” to help the user make some decisions on the value of the content of each article. At the highest level is the featured category. Under Wikipedia featured classification a featured article is “professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information” and “exemplifies our very best work and professional standards of writing and presentation.” The lowest classification is a stub which provides very little content.
With this in mind, I reviewed each of the topics and looked at their quality scale rating. For the Dick Cheney article, Wikipedia rated the article as GA for good article. According to Wikipedia a GA rating is “useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.” The article seemed completed and fairly polished to me. I would considering using the article as a source.
The Assisted Suicide article is not rated at this point and contains three warnings, as mentioned above, in the article. Based on the state of this article, I would not be comfortable using it although I might look at the references, see also and external links.
The article on Darfur is rated as a start class. This is a developing article that has some meaningful content but is weak in areas like encyclopedia like pros, inconsistent style and an incomplete set of material. However, the fundamental content is there and there are enough sources to establish verifiability. So with articles like this, knowing the state of the article allows for using the article to get some quick facts as one starts a research project.
So, I think that understanding the quality of an article certainly allows for one to use put filters on how one uses those articles. With this in mind I think Wikipedia can and does produce high quality articles that can equal those of encyclopedias. However, it also produces junk and it is up to the reader to understand the state of an article and use it accordingly.
Comment by Jim Rubino — September 16, 2008 @ 6:12 am |
I love wikipedia, and find it a good place to begin my research or discover more info about a topic that I’m interested in, or just for browsing,and the concept is intriguing of having an information source that anyone can add to, but I have run into information in the past that was vague, or not verifiable, and some that just had almost nothing to it, as the Darfur entry. That area of the world has a rich archaeological history and has been inhabited since the neolithic, it’s thought. Where’s the info on that? The current conflict is hardly mentioned. The assisted suicide article is not much better. It actually has notations saying that the ideas expressed may be a synthesis of published articles expressing ideas not attributable to the original sources, that the article does not cite references or sources, and that the style or tone may not be appropriate to wikipedia. On the other hand, there’s tons of info on Dick Cheney, and his family, his politics, his history, photos, etc. Who really needs to know all that stuff? Just give us the facts, not what he ate for breakfast. Better yet, give us some facts on Darfur and the legal rulings and dates on the cases of assisted suicide. Because I think we all know wikipedia’s not going away. It’s easy and convenient to use, and can have some good info. You’ve just got to use your critical thinking skills. Heavily.
Comment by Kathie Koop — September 17, 2008 @ 1:47 am |
I agree with Jennifer Medrano about Wikipedia being a good starting point for further research. I looked up Darfur, assisted suicide and Dick Cheney. There are parts of the articles that I wouldn’t want to consider, such as opinions, but the general articles could have interesting points that I would double check, or triple check. I wouldn’t cite it for research papers though. I think all resources should be checked against other sources.
Comment by Lance Garbini — September 17, 2008 @ 3:30 am |
My FINAL advice about Wikipedia is to use it for your own personal information gathering activities, but to rely on more reputable sources for your academic research. This means, DON’T cite Wikipedia as a source in an academic research paper. You hurt your own credibility, even if the information you found on the site was accurate. This point should have been driven home because it was a concern raised and addressed in the Wikipedia entry about “Wikipedia” . . .
Critics of Wikipedia target its systemic bias and inconsistencies[12] and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[13] Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[14] Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information.[15] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[16][17]
To me, I think this statement is just as incriminating as that famous politician saying that he tried marijuana “but didn’t inhale.”
You guys did a great job on this assignment. Nice work!
Comment by fink2ink — September 17, 2008 @ 11:47 pm |