I’m sure you all are quite familiar with Wikipedia, and I’m pretty sure you all have used it in the past. Just incase you don’t quite know what it is, here is a quick definition: Wikipedia is “a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project.” Moreover, and this is why there is so much controversy revolving Wikipedia, it is written and edited by anyone with access to the website.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. Throughout my high school and college career, teachers have constantly been telling me to stay away at all costs, as if Wikipedia is some evil manifestation designed to lie and deceive me every time I look at it. On the contrary, I have rarely come across something that is a blatant lie. Obviously certain details can be missed out, but there is no more convenient way to learn a basic overview of a subject (in my opinion).
While browsing basic search engines I came across an interesting article in which a very opinionated critic by the name of Nicholas Carr voiced his thoughts after reading two articles at random on the wonderful Wikipedia. “This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts.” After reading this quote for the first time, the only thing I could think is, “Wow, this guy really hates Wikipedia.” But on a serious note, Carr does make a valid point. Wikipedia can, in some cases, contain information this is incredibly inaccurate, and in some cases, be just plain pranks from users. To combat this weakness, Wikipedia claims that users quickly see problems and then correct them “rapidly.”
In some instances, usually with highly debatable topics, it is impossible to correct all vandalism and as a result, Wikipedia has to lock up the page. This was the case in 2006 when two companies, Nintendo and Sony, both released new products that created the biggest debate of all time (read with sarcasm). Due to an obscene amount of flaming, Wiki chose to lock up the pages. At the bottom is a link to an article that describes the conflict. Just incase everyone doesn’t quite make it to the link, I want to make sure everyone reads an incredibly interesting and important quote from the article: “Interestingly, the Wii seems to attract more conflicts of opinion on the site than the subjects of Scientology (8,475 revisions), God (7,537 revisions), and even Britney Spears (9,886 revisions.)” Ha-ha, that is just great.
Although Wikipedia creates a lot of controversy, and rightfully so, it remains an abundantly used and highly popular website. Although it is not a very “quotable” source (I don’t recommend you use it extensively for your research paper), it can be very informative on a basic level. On Thursday I am going to go into more detail on Wikipedia as well as other forms of online knowledge.
Sony and Nintendo article:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6161547.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I find it so intriguing that the entry for "Wii" was so incredibly popular. This strikes my interest because it makes me wonder what other entries out there are very popular. There are a number of times that I have tried to view a page, and found the "edit" link missing or disabled. Likewise, I have found some completely off-the-wall entries about the most bizaare things, usually have to do with extraterrestrials or pornography. Either way, I like the content of your blog presentation, Ryan, and I look forward to hearing your presentation the day after tomorrow in class. Live long and prosper in the land of wikipedia. I too wouldn't use it for direct quotes, as I too have heard professors say "IT'LL BE THE END OF YOU IN THIS CLASS!!!" Well, like you said, I agree that it's a great way to get a nice overview of a topic, however, yes, a lot of it is bull crap, and most of the time, you never really know who the author is, or how credible they are.
I agree that Wikipedia can usually be used as a source to gain some background on a topic, and I think as long as you cross-reference the information with a more reliable source, you should be fine. Wikipedia can also be good for looking for other sources on the topic because most of the time the people editing the article will cite a reference to something else that you can then go to and find out more information on the topic. Of course you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia in your academic research papers, but it can be useful to gain an overview of the topic.
As far as the "rapid" fixing of defaced articles, I must say that every time I have seen an article defaced on Wikipedia after refreshing the page, it is usually fixed, so that might indicate that there are a high number of serious users who will fix mistakes and vandalism. Some articles on Wikipedia are "garbage" as Nicholas Carr puts it because it's all unorganized and full of "dubious factoids," but you can usually tell which ones are. Wikipedia's interface is very simple and attractive and is probably one of the main reasons it has become so popular, so maybe other more "reliable" informational websites should follow suit in order to attract more users. Looking forward to your presentation on Thursday.
I've had a lot of my professors discourage me from using Wikipedia as well. At my high school we were forbidden from citing wikipedia, any paper that had Wikipedia as a citation was marked down. Despite the fact that the information may have some inaccuracies I also find that it is a good starting place for research that I am doing, or just simply inquiring about a topic. However when I was starting to research ICANN the other day for a paper for a policy class I was using Wikipedia and almost everything on there was being "disputed" so it was hard to tell what to take as info to use.
I love Wikipedia, and find it very amusing that anytime I search for something in Google, Wikipedia is one of the top 5 sites to pop up. Wikipedia is great for general overviews of topics, which is basically what most of my high school papers were about. None of the papers I had to write were ever that involved or detailed, so Wikipedia was a great source. I still think Wikipedia is a reliable source, because I frequently double check the facts presented there against other scholarly sources, and can't say that I have ever found a blatantly incorrect fact on Wikipedia.
I, for one, never used Wikipedia until college. In fact, I've never used it for a paper until this one. Yet, after looking at many academic sources, I found that my topic covered on Wikipedia was fairly accurate. I believe it is a viable source as long as you cross reference your material. No matter what, I still believe it to be a great reference site (even with only one official use of it).
wikipedia is the greatest invention. i just had to take a vocab test online through blackboard, if it wasnt for wikipedia life wouldve actually been a little tough.
It is also a great source to get started on your topic then branch out.
Not gonna lie...Wikipedia, Sparknotes, that stuff has saved my ass more times than I can remember. Especially for a book or film synopsis.
Wikipedia is pretty much always my first stop for a subject im unfamiliar with, so I am definitely on the optimistic side of the wikipeida debate. Likewise I have continuosly ignored the warnings and rantings of my professors. I have always taken the information with a grain of salt, of course, and made sure to cross reference rather than use wikipedia as a source. Still, I understand the concerns of dubiousness and falsified information. I have never encountered a blatant lie or mistruth on Wikipedia, other than an innacurate date or two, so I have no experience with update speeds. As long as users know to take Wikipedia with a bit of skepticism and understand the importance of cross referencing, wikipedia will always have a place in online research. This is especially true with the in depth bibliographies of many wikipedia articles.
The downfall of wikipedia is definitely that users can purposely or unintentionally mislead. What you get from the website really depends on what you are looking for. I personally only ever look for brief overviews and links to trustworthy sources, which are often found in the citations at the end of the page. considering the interests of most web-savvy users of wikipedia it doesn't surprise me that debate, even childish 'flaming' would be a hot item on wikipedia. The same people who go and play these games also spend much time developing this ongoing project and wish to impose their views on others in this arena. Unlike with real debate though, there will be no winner with wikipedia, just the end of the debate in that medium.
According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is a credible source! Just Kidding,but I agree with Kate, that it is funny when you do a google search, Wikipedia is always one of the first few hits.
Recently I was looking for something that I had to memorize for my fraternity, and I couldn't get it off the frat's website becuase i didn't have a brother login, but I was able to find what i was looking for on Wikipedia.
I think its a great idea, even if its not the most credible source. I think of it as my dumb-downed dictionary.
I like using Wikipedia for papers. Some of the editors on there, however, are complete dicks. I have edited and created articles for various organizations and have always had to deal with some bullshit from a self-righteous, middle-aged hermit who decided that I have encroached on the academic (lol) integrity of wikipedia. This all stemming from a website which I can edit anywhere anonymously whenever I want. Their guidelines are not consistant nor reasonable.
I love logging on wirelessly and editing articles to add a little flavor, however. The funny thing is, these pranks often last longer than some of the serious projects I have compiled and published.
I am pretty familiar with how vicious some Wikipedia editors are after trying to convince them that electoral rolls were delicious treats from the Star Wars universe. It's a traaap!!
I love Wikipedia because its often a good starting point for researching topics that you know nearly nothing about. By now (hopefully) nobody thinks that they can go to the site and take everything they read to be the absolute facts but as a quick reference tool, its great.
This topic reminds me of our discussions in class about the media's transition to be focused more on blogs than actual credible reporting. Maybe the same is true with encyclopedias and reference material. If people don't abuse their power of editing the articles (with information that may be false) than we could end up with a more well-rounded wealth of information.
I personally believe wikipedia is a great way to briefly research a topic. In that aspect I find nothing wrong with it. I have never come across any information that was blatantly inaccurate, but I do see why teachers and professors see it as a problem as a source in an academic paper. If a person without any sort of degree or with possibly limited knowledge about a topic can post information, it would seem to be very unreliable.
I think that wikipedia is a great source to get some background information but i would never use it as a source in my paper. its not always written in the best grammer and often comes off as sounging young. but if i wanna know about a partiular actor or city across to globe or anything else ill check that websit out first.
Post a Comment