...is Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia.......” "Wikipedia:general Disclaimer" (2011) So what about Wikipedia does or does not make it a credible source. Below I will discuss the debate outcomes, the arguments between both sides, and my reasoning for choosing the against side. An argument was developed based on debate outcomes Based on the debate outcomes from the group, there were many good points in reasoning why Wikipedia is or is not a credible source. The group came up with approximately 26 points that were either against or for Wikipedia being a credible source. The debate was very active leaving everyone a good foundation on what each person thought about the topic. The four steps for presenting arguments fairly were used to develop the argument Each person has their opinion on what they feel about the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia. Some believed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can create an account and update information whereas others may think that to be a positive aspect. They feel because anyone can create an account, this gives the opportunity for groups to come together (especially those that are very knowledgeable) and this in turn will develop a common resource of knowledge to be credible. Some will argue that Wikipedia is not reliable because it is not peered reviewed, but then some would say that Wikipedia is backed up with references at the end of the page which links to reliable information...
Words: 312 - Pages: 2
...November 2, 2015 Yay or Nay The mission of Wikipedia was to design it to be used as a free encyclopedia and research tool in which readers could obtain verifiable information. Wikipedia has been questioned by many individuals concerning its creditability. It is open to a large contributor base allowing anyone to edit and write anything. Many use information from Wikipedia to do research without second guessing or even thinking that the information being obtained may actually be false. “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start; they may contain false or debatable information” (Wikipedia: Using Wikipedia as a research tool). Determining whether Wikipedia is good or bad as far as being able to be used as a source of credit worthy information is kind of hard to figure out. Believing that the pros of Wikipedia outweighs the cons, it is still hard to find a balance. When you search for something on the internet, the first link to direct your search is a link involving Wikipedia which some would consider a good sign. Wikipedia is a good source to read when you absolutely have no knowledge about what you are researching. Since entries can be made by anyone, the diversity of different subjects could be beneficial. You could learn how one subject could become many due to the differences in cultural and personal opinions. “Wikipedia takes information from other reliable websites and puts it onto one portal. Each piece of information...
Words: 833 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia Evaluation Timie Lee Harper University of West Alabama Author Note Timie L. Harper, Department of Education, Online Studies, University of West Alabama. This assignment was completed for Dr. Parson’s online Library Media course. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timie Lee Harper, Department of Education, Online Studies, University of West Alabama, 100 US-11, Livingston, AL 35470. Contact: harpert1303@uwa.edu Abstract This paper evaluates Wikipedia and explores three published articles that discuss Wikipedia and its credibility. It also discusses ways it can be used in a school library setting as a tool to teach many useful resources such as how to find creditability information and cite sources....
Words: 794 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia that many rely on as a source for information. However, there are others that question whether the encyclopedia can be cited as a valid and credible source. This argument is based on Learning Team C’s debate on whether Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for information. The viewpoints from both sides will be examined and a conclusion will be drawn as to why Wikipedia is not a credible and valid source for information. Credible According to Lizz Shepherd, a freelance writer, Wikipedia has one of the best Google page ranks of any site in the world and is in the top 10 of Alexa. Regardless of what you search for, the Wikipedia entry is probably in the top three results for that topic. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows its users to edit and remove content from any page. Because Wikipedia allows its users to change information brings frequent questions about the validity of the information on its pages. The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the few sources that most people agree on for reliable, accurate information. Encyclopedia Britannica is considered the standard for finding accurate information. In an attempt to compare accuracy, the journal Nature ran a large-scale test of the information in Wikipedia entries versus the same entries in Encyclopedia Britannica (Shepherd, 2010). Nature’s results of the test revealed that both sources had numerous errors, Wikipedia, 2.86% and Encyclopedia Britannica...
Words: 616 - Pages: 3
...It’s 2:30 in the morning, your research paper is due in six hours, and the only source you have been able to find is on Wikipedia. Your professors have expressed multiple times that you cannot cite Wikipedia as an academic resource in your research paper. What do you do? In the discussion of citing Wikipedia as a legitimate resource, most universities and professors would agree that you should not, because the material and content on Wikipedia can provide misleading information and is subject to vandalism. Others, including myself, would disagree and argue that Wikipedia, in most cases, is a great and reliable source of information. First of all, on Wikipedia’s about page you will find that Wikipedia articles are constantly being created and fostered. Often times, new historical and scientific events appear within minutes, rather than months or years, unlike a printed encyclopedia (Wikipedia: About). In the article “Wikipedia: Friend, not Foe”, by Darren Crovitz and Scott Smoot they state:...
Words: 1121 - Pages: 5
...Writing an Argument; Wikipedia Jesus Manuel Acosta-Vargas University of Phoenix MGT/521 Management Prof. Elsie Jimenez-Galarza Writing an Argument Today in this century that “we” live, must student like surfing in the Internet to find his resources. The Internet as of the present time contains a several encyclopedias online and research’s websites of all kinds. Some of these types of research’s websites are reliable in some points, some are credible investigations some not, some are valid point of view, and other websites are not developing any of these criteria and lack bias. I am going to writing an argument about the infamous Wikipedia online encyclopedia and his credibility in the web. Wikipedia from scratch we have to make some question; have a valid point of view? Have some credible sources? Is reliable source of information and good research to an essay? In addition to that i have to develop an argument based upon are the outcomes about the debate pro Wikipedia and against Wikipedia. And to support all the argument against Wikipedia, I going to identifying each criterion used to analyze and evaluate all the credibility sources. Some research demonstrates that Wikipedia’s articles that lack biases. Some articles are lack of ideas and neutral point of view too. Head and Eisenberg (2010) write that Wikipedia is a source that is used in 85% of the work course of university students and in 91% of related searches problems...
Words: 946 - Pages: 4
...source. A couple of courses back that most reliable sources for the internet are .Gov .Edu. .Org .Mil. Com. Something’s you should look out for who is the author of the website and if the author doesn’t have credentials then the source is not reliable. I like to look a gossip columns about celebrities most of the time what they are saying is not true. Know if they say reliable sources then I might think it may be true. If a website seems old, it's probably best to steer clear. One way to check - look for a "last updated" date on the page or site. If a site looks poorly designed and inexperienced, chances are it was created by amateurs. This means the source is not reliable. But be careful - just because a website is professionally designed doesn't mean it's reliable. Many sources of information come from people or organizations that have a special interest in the information being presented. This can cause the information to be biased in a way that persuades the reader to believe the information being presented and form an opinion that shows favor to the reader or organization. Some drug companies tell you about all the benefits of their medication but not the side effects of the drug I think that why drug companies have a lot of people are suing drug companies. anyone can write anything on a website doesn’t mean it’s true for example Wikipedia I thought it was a reliable source for information but about a year ago some ask why I use the source I my response was doesn’t...
Words: 394 - Pages: 2
...Essay Plan Introduction: Thesis: Wikipedia is not a creditable source of information for tertiary-level writing. Body Paragraph 1: * Meaning of Wikipedia * Misleading readers * Vandalism * Reference Gorman Body Paragraph 2: * Academics publishing work * Editing * Reference Lu and Askin Body Paragraph 3: * Counter argument * Credibility * Reference Lu and Askin AND Crovitz and Smoot Conclusion: Convenient but not accurate! The purpose of this essay is to provide insight as to why Wikipedia is not a creditable source of information for tertiary-level writing. Tertiary-level writing involves the use of valid reference sources to show supporting evidence. Anyone can contribute anonymously and edit pages in the non-profit internet encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, automatically reducing the credibility of the popular website. Wikipedia is known as the free encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia in Gorman’s opinion (2007, p. 273) is ‘created by experts and monitored by professional editors who themselves are often subject experts’ and believes that Wikipedia should be recognised for what it is, ‘opinions untested by experts’. Wikipedia has a large amount of worldwide anonymous volunteers that monitor, and then clean up articles. Professionals may not want to give out their knowledge for free and therefore posts that are incorrect will never be corrected by the appropriate person. On the other hand, people who claim...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...Wikipedia: Appropriate For What The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has grown impressively since its creation eight years ago. Its 8.2 million entries in 253 languages have been written entirely by web volunteers. That sounds like an impressive story of success, if it was not the polemic behind it. Whereas many defend the free source of information others ban the website because the writers are anonymous volunteers and the revision process questionable. If the source people are using for writing an essay is not reliable so they are not. That is a very simple sentence that demonstrates how dangerous it can be avoiding to evaluate well the sources of information used as a baseline for our creation. A good source of information needs to be impartial, showing different points of view about the subject, has to have the right style and tone, depending on our audience and purpose of writing, needs to be updated, and the author to have the ideal credentials to write about the topic with property. Most of the critic against Wikipedia resides in the argument that nobody can trust a source that everyone can edit, and it does make sense, but radicalism is not needed. The historian Waters (2007) have said that the absence of accountability of the website is reason to ban students from using Wikipedia in research where they are responsible for informational accuracy. That is truly an argument that needs to be considered when discussing if the source is valid for formal researches, but why...
Words: 744 - Pages: 3
...1. Who is the founder of Wikipedia? When was it found? Where is the company located? How many servers store the information? Who owns Wikipedia? Define Wikipedia. The founder of Wikipedia are two internet entrepreneurs named Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia was launched on January 15th, 2001. The Wikipedia company headquarters is located in San Francisco, California. As of 2012, Wikipedia has 339 servers. There is no one person that owns Wikipedia. It is a crowd sourced encyclopedia with over 75,000 active registered editors from around the world, plus an uncountable number of unregistered editors who are all working together to try to make sure the information on Wikipedia is truthful and accurate. Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as “Wikipedians.” Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles. 2. Describe the criticisms regarding Wikipedia. Why does the site generate controversy? The most prominent criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a primary source. For that reason, much of the information that is provided on the site often cannot be trusted. Because the website is an open content encyclopedia, any person in the world can log in to the site and edit any topic within the encyclopedia. This can, and often does, lead to incorrect postings containing faulty information. For instance, some of...
Words: 900 - Pages: 4
...manageable. One of the main things and if not the most important it will be the ability to identify and separate credible online sources from non-credible ones. It is very true that technology has help make college life easier, with search engines such as Google or Bing at just one click away of distance. The only problem is that with so many choices to pick from how to tell if a source is even worth to look at without having to expend a great amount of time looking at each one through. Even though non-credible sources are easier to find, credible sources are more reliable because they are usually written by experts and have more substantial information in them. If we take a credible source like “Rising prevalence of cohabitation in United States may have partially offset decline in marriage rates” from the Family Planning Perspectives and compared against a non-credible sources like “Cohabitation in the United States” from Wikipedia, we can see that the article from the credible source has the components that help sort out a credible source from a non-credible. The article “Rising prevalence of cohabitation in United States may have partially offset decline in marriage rates” from the Family Planning Perspectives has the main things that you should look in a credible source. First of all I found the article in the CINAHL with Full Text database from the library most popular database list. I made sure I used the Boolean word Cohabitation in USA and I limit the results to only show full...
Words: 825 - Pages: 4
...tactics like: cause and effect or problem and solution; eventually helping the writer gain the reader’s understanding of “why” his or her point of view was formed [ (Spatt, Writing the Research Essay, 2011) ].” Cause and Effect or problem and solution Cause and effect or problem and solution are basically the same. This tactic verifies an informal relationship of two opposing positions. The opinion usually solves any uncertainty to the reader about “why?” For example, in the first class our group split up into two teams. Team Joe, Joe and Kurt were acting as the debate team in support of Wikipedia as a credible resource for research. Team Lisa, Lisa and Laurie were acting as the debate team against Wikipedia as a credible resource for research. Joe and Kurt’s debate attempted to solve listener’s uncertainty regarding “why” Wikipedia is a credible resource for research. Team Lisa’s debate attempted to solve listener’s uncertainty about “why” Wikipedia is not a credible resource for research. Team Joe mentioned that in comparison to Encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a wider range of user friendly topics contained in approximately 18 million freely usable articles and that Wikipedia is continually reviewed for accuracy. Team Joe also argued that Wikipedia is available to anyone who has access to the Internet at no cost to the user. Team Lisa argued that Wikipedia may have 15 times the number of...
Words: 1235 - Pages: 5
...Wikipedia is a Credible Source of Information Dalia Alawami MGT/521 June 18, 2012 Ms. Sandra Griffin Wikipedia is a Credible Source of Information “I have always viewed the mission of Wikipedia to be much bigger than just creating a killer website. We're doing that of course, and having a lot of fun doing it, but a big part of what motivates us is our larger mission to affect the world in a positive way”.(Jimmy Wales) When Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger lunched the web based encyclopedia Wikipedia, the basic idea which they wanted to provide is offering considerable source of information that is affordable to anyone who has an access to the internet. The main theme of Wikipedia is the editable tool available in the web site, any internet user who has an account in Wikipedia can edit or add information to any article or writing new article. However, this point itself is the most controversial aspect of Wikipedia. Since normal users are writing & editing articles that means accuracy of mentioned information can’t be considered in researches, well this is the claiming of people who are against the idea of Wikipedia. Those claims lead to several studies & comparisons done by experts & academic figures through the last 10 years. Since the creation of the site 2001 the argument has been started and still ongoing. Too many questions been aroused, “Who is writing those articles?”, “Why some articles are not supported with resources?” “Why identity of the writer...
Words: 888 - Pages: 4
...Wikipedia is often found by most teachers to be a bad source to get information from. This is because everyone in the world is allowed to get on and edit any article they want as long as they have a Wikipedia profile. In order to figure out if Wikipedia is a reliable or an unreliable source to get information from for a college level paper, I will be checking an article on the All Blacks rugby team for a reasonable amount of information on the team, and their accomplishments. I will be looking at the accuracy of that information, and the validity of the references that are listed for the article in Wikipedia about the All Blacks. The All Blacks are a rugby team from New Zealand that has had a lot of success over the hundred years they’ve been...
Words: 980 - Pages: 4
...are needed; a wireless router and a wireless network interface card in a computer. Depending on the type of network that will be used, the expenses would vary. A wireless network can potentially be more expensive. The reason for this is because the security of data should be a main priority. Data that is sent through wireless transmissions by default is unsecure and anyone with a wireless device could connect and use the bandwidth of that access point. This is why securing a wireless access point is very important. Most wireless access points are ready with specific encryption methods. Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP): This encryption allows 64 or 128 bit encryption and uses a word and converts it to hexadecimal. This encryption is possible to be hacked with the correct hacking tools. It is always best to use the highest encryption. There is also 2 versions Wi-Fi Protected Access WPA1 and WPA2. Some wireless routers do not include this protection, and this is one reason why this technology would be more expensive. WPA1 and WPA2 is very difficult to break, but it is still possible. The WPA security uses 256 bit encryption and uses a passphrase that is...
Words: 1166 - Pages: 5
