 |
Online image retrieved on March 23, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallelujah_diet |
Ten years ago if someone wanted to find out more information about something quickly they might use a book called an encyclopedia to look it up. Today Wikipedia is probably the most widely used electronic encyclopedia. As it states on the
Wikipedia website, Wikipedia is basically "a free, collaborative, multilingual Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 21 million articles (over 3.9 million in English alone) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site." (Wikipedia, 2012). It's simple, fast and provides more information than the original book style encyclopedias. Of course with something this amazing available to us, there is always some pros and cons.
The major con about Wikipedia is that the public writes it so basically anyone can go in and write information about a certain topic. To protect them, Wikipedia has a
general disclaimer page clearly stating that their articles are not necessarily reliable. Most of the topics on Wikipedia are pretty close to being accurate but there are certain topics where some writers or contributors may write something in their own opinion. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not that information is valid and useful to them. For my
ALES 204 class I was required to update a "stub" on Wikipedia. This allowed me to realize how easy it was to create or change the information on Wikipedia. The only thing that I found difficult was using codes called Wiki markups to get certain words in a certain font or adding a reference. Nonetheless I was still able to figure it out and contributed my findings to the topic called the
Hallelujah Diet. The thing that I had to keep in mind when writing for the Hallelujah Diet was that I needed to keep my information neutral so that it wasn't going to sound bias. When writing a Wikipedia article one should never put their own opinions in it. Because of this reason we would never see an academic article cite a Wikipedia page or use it as a reference because there's always that chance therefore making it an unreliable source.
Aside from the con that Wikipedia doesn't provide 100% correct information, the website is still monitored for accuracy in information. So if someone did write something bias about a politician for example, other people or Wikipedia administrators will take that invalid information off the page. Another good thing is that it is free so anyone who has Internet access can use it and it might help broaden some people's knowledge. For some people, such as university students, Wikipedia is a great place to get some background information on a topic. Like a fellow classmate
Daniel Schwenk says, "Wikipedia should be used only as a starting point when writing scientific or research based papers due to the uncertainty of credibility." Most Wikipedia articles also provide sections such as references, further readings, and external links so one can follow those links to find a more valid source that they can rely on for that topic.
Even though I have learned how easy it is for anyone to go in and write something on Wikipedia, I also know that a lot of people will use it regardless of its flaws. For example, when Wikipedia went offline in January to protest against SOPA a lot of people realized how much they relied on Wikipedia and I was definitely one of those people. So although Wikipedia is not 100% reliable people will still continue to use it because they know that its intentions are good and it is there to provide general information about millions of topics for millions of people.
Wikipedia. (n.d). Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia