Wikipedia is a very broad, encyclopedia-like database that many access online. It is very interesting that many different professors can offer their expertise to the site and this makes me curious and drew me into the article. This article discusses the many different aspects of Wikipedia, while offering opinions of whether it is a good or bad site for excellent information. While the site at first was based towards gaining quantity, the founders have begun to migrate away from that and concentrate more on the quality and accuracy of the information. The article says that the website is trying to encourage many scholars to contribute to the articles. Some are responding with the attitude “if you can’t beat them, join them.”
The fact that this type of site is thriving kind of bothers me. It raises many questions to me that I don’t think anyone can answer with one hundred percent honesty. This lack of credited information leaves me wondering how a regular web browser like myself could tell good information from bad on this website. After reading this I am a little worried because I know for a fact that I have used some information off of Wikipedia for research papers, believing the information was factual and not just opinionated. The way the site is set up, the average user is led to believe that this website is just like an encyclopedia. It has everything from pronunciation to alter meanings. I think that this website should be held for the quality of the information they are providing users because otherwise it is a waste of students time to use this website for anything more than pure humor.
No comments:
Post a Comment