The more I read into Dunkel's article the more confused I become about a multitude of topics. I personally have no problem using Wikipedia as a primary source to find out some interesting information on a topic I am just discovering. Because of the recommendations of my teachers, I would never have thought about using Wikipedia as an actual source. Firstly, if the saying goes "there are two sides to every story", how can any controversial entry into Wikipedia not be endlessly argued until the entry is dropped entirely? I'm not an expert on Iranian foreign policy, but when I read some of the harsh comments from the entry for Ahmadinejad, I could tell that a lot of people were angry, or at least had something to say. However, these comments were made anonymously with little or no textual support. I don't believe you should be able to voice an opinion or make a statement that you expect others to consider credible if you post anonymously.
As for the credibility of the Wikipedia entries themselves, isn't the people publishing the entry solely have the power to bias the article one way or another? I understood from Dunkel's article that there are certain checks and balances instituted to keep articles relatively unchanged after they have been published. However, the publisher has the final say on what the article will actually contain. Perhaps that article is one on Ahmadinejad, and the publisher is an Iranian supporter. Will he say the president lashed out at Israelites harshly like many people believe? I don't believe he will. Another scenario that leads me to believe nothing in Wikipedia can be set in stone is the voting machine story. If Wikipedia can be altered for the benefit of certain people then I don't believe it should be credible at all.
Ultimately, I believe my true opinion of Wikipedia really has not changed. To me, it is still a great way to learn pieces of information that may interest you in choosing a topic for a research paper or an experiment, but using and/or citing Wikipedia as a credible source is not a good idea.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wickedpedia....or good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked how you set up your piece and that I could follow your thought process. I completely agree with your idea that Wikipedia should simply be used as a browsing tool not as a legitimate credible source. Another thought came to me when reading your article that Wikipedia in some ways is similar to internet sources. Anyone can put something up on the internet and claim it is true. My teachers in high school seemed to group websites not sponsored by legitimate sources and Wikipedia in the same group and I think now I am able to understand why.
ReplyDeleteI think this is more along the lines of what a real thought process for using wikipedia should be. Carl in his blog mentioned that he thought it was credited because a scientist could just change it, but i like how you mentioned it as more of a place to get non important information. Very informative morgan
ReplyDeletefrogger
There will always be the argument on whether or not Wikipedia is credible. You'll have a handful of people who see both sides of the argument. But, I agree with what you have to say on the matter. Wikipedia should be used as a browsing tool rather than a website you would use in a bibliography, for example. Wikipedia is more of a place to get background information on a subject.
ReplyDelete