Today in society with the ability to access the
internet people are able to gain information and knowledge with the press of a
button (Royal, 138). There are many
search engines available through the internet to gain information like Google,
Youtube, Forums, and even a very popular site among many people looking for
fast information, Wikipedia. The
internet as Brown suggests in his article is a important medium that allows
people the ability to access information more than ever before (Brown, 5). Whenever a person requires basic information
about any topic, event, issue they are able to type it in Wikipedia’s search
engine in order to read up on the basic facts.
For example if a person wants to look up a certain breed of dog and all
the information associated with that dog they would type it in Wikipedia’s
search bar and receive the important information related, such as its average
weight, life span, history and Wikipedia even provides pictures. This information seems reliable and is
considered a “free encyclopedia” so many people use Wikipedia as their first
source on the internet for information (Royal, 138). However the problem surrounding this free encyclopedia
that is so easily accessible to any internet user is that the information
potentially could be unreliable.
Wikipedia allows anyone, whether they are a credible source or not, to
create and edit content available on their search engines (Royal, 139). However I do believe that many people using
Wikipedia are aware that the information is potentially unreliable however they
still will continue using this search engine because it is fast, easy, and
could potentially have information that is true. This can be proven through Richard Jensen’s
article as he claims that Wikipedia in terms of daily usage, ranks in one of
the top ten sites used by internet users, this being right below Facebook which
has millions of users (Jensen, 1165-1166).
My confidence in Wikipedia before reading these
articles is relatively the same then after reading them. I admit that I am a frequent user of
Wikipedia for fast information on various subjects. Whenever I have a concern, question, or want
to know facts about a subject the first place I search for information is on
Wikipedia. I am aware that some of the
information could potentially be false or edited by anonymous users however I
am not using Wikipedia for assignments where detail needs to be paid. I and probably many other users that are
using the site daily are looking up the basics, for example if you want to know
basic facts about chicken pocks when your little sister has them. Wikipedia will tell you the basic information
that you need to know like how to treat them, what they look like, and the
history behind it. For more detailed
information I would not go to Wikipedia I would instead look up an academic
journal or another credible source. What
was interesting to learn however is that Wikipedia does get taken advantage by
many users that are accessing this website not for information however for fun. Jensen claims Wikipedia suffers thousands of
changes to articles an hour from its younger users who are “editing” in ridiculous
comments and changing actual information (Jensen 1168). However what was also interesting and nice to
know is that editors of Wikipedia recognize these changes and edit them back to
the correct information. Through knowing
this I think it is important for Wikipedia users to be aware that potentially
the information could be unreliable and false, however it is one of the leading
sites in the world and because people are so reliant on it they will continue
to utilize the information that is posted.
References
Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier:
Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Miliary History. 76, 1.
Pp 1165-1182
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not .
. . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
Educators have constantly advised us students to never use Wikipedia when inquiring information because anyone and everyone can add their input. The article that I most agreed with is Jensen’s article because he talks about one of the main disadvantages of Wikipedia is the lack of authority (Jensen, 2012, p. 1166).
ReplyDeleteBefore reading the articles my overall opinion of Wikipedia is that it is untrustworthy because anyone can create an entry and provide information to others. These individuals who are adding entries do not require any learning background, which concerns me because you do not know how true the information is as well as how biased the entries are.
After I read three of the articles my opinions mostly stayed the same. Although I believe Wikipedia is a good website when starting out on an assignment and you need an overview, but I still do not believe it is a trustworthy website.
Wikipedia is great for fast information and that is mostly what I use it for. I do honestly believe that it’s a great starting point for research. The information on the site if not all true will give you a general understanding about a topic or issue. It is also a great source to find alternatives information, Wikipedia gives us access to this on the bottom of the page, where additional sources of information are listed. When I read Jensen’s article I was also very glad to find out that the editors at Wikipedia monitor the edits and changes people make on the site. This restored my faith in Wikipedia just a tiny bit more. It’s amazing to me that even though there so much controversy about the reliability of this website it still remains as one of the leading sites in the world. Wikipedia should get some credit for keeping an active user ship don’t you think?
ReplyDelete