As far as internet sources go, we have been taught to always respect subscription encyclopedias (such as Britannica), government websites, and university databases. We have been taught to question the sites of “random” individuals and sites without a listed author unless we can confirm these facts with those from a database that we can trust.
Sadly, Wikipedia.org technically falls into the second category, and it does not garner as much respect as it deserves. Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and can be grossly inaccurate. HOWEVER, Wikipedia employs experts to ensure the accuracy of its facts and therefore, a very small proportion of Wikipedia’s articles are inaccurate.
Another plus to Wikipedia is the fact that it is free, and therefore, it can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection. No lousy database subscription with a 17 character password required to log-on. Additionally, no annoying advertisements. Instead, Wikipedia provides its users with a user-friendly search interface that allows one to quickly find his/her desired article.
Wikipedia is useful for those of us who want to quickly look up a literary or IM reference. The opening paragraphs of each article provide users with a quick overview of the topic. Additionally, for those of us doing a research project on a topic, a preliminary search on Wikipedia informs us whether our topic is too narrow or too broad. The Wikipedia article can provide us with several suggestions of how to narrow or broaden this field. Furthermore, Wikipedia provides one with outside links to further one’s understanding of any subject.
Also, Wikipedia’s use of fairly simplistic vocabulary assists students from becoming lost in the complicated jargon of a specialized field.
Some critics argue that not all of the information on Wikipedia can necessarily be trusted. I concur; it is important to double check facts with ANOTHER respected database.
While researching, it is likely that you may come across a source with a subjective viewpoint. To filter out this bias, one must ask oneself, “Why is this author writing this? Is he/she out to prove a point? Or does he/she simply want to share his/her knowledge with the world?” If you do come across a source which you feel may be biased, it is best to again check these facts with different sources. But remember, Britannica and .gov sites can be culturally biased (“the most powerful societies write the history books”).
In my research, I intend to skim the majority of the Wikipedia article on nuclear energy. I will select a few portions that interest me to focus on. I will then thoroughly read these sections ALONG WITH outside sources, such as from The Nuclear Energy Institute and the US government’s Energy Information Administration.
~Rick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Be sure to check NEI's blog for a number of other sources.
Great article about wikipedia.
I agree with you that wikipedia CAN be trusted (see why on my blog). I never thought to check the bias of web pages. A good thought for the future, and a good idea to keep in general when watching CNN or reading TIME magazine.
I like that your post addresses much of what mine left out! I certainly agree with your points; Wikipedia is incredibly useful, even if I just skim or look at linked sources, and indeed, it can be rather credible. Also, thanks for bringing up the issue of subjectivity, and especially cultural bias. I find it interesting to use sites from around the world when possible, as ours may be consistently biased without our knowledge.
All in all, good examination of reliability!
Very good points about wikipedia and biases....i enjoyed reading your opinions on wikipedia because i think it can be trusted too. i heard teddy luben say once that he tried to change something on wikipedia to make it not true....and wikipedia emailed him basically harassing him about the validity of his comments. SO, wikipedia is getting harder to change, and i believe the information is reliable. I know this because i read information from wikipedia, and then information from the UD library thing (for example) and its the same exact information.
i like your view on wikipedia. i agree for the most part. Im not quite sure why teachers despise wikipedia so much. its definitly a helpful resource and i believe it is very trustworthy.
I agree that information obtained from Wikipedia must be crossed with other, outside information, as must all information gathered from any source. It is important to not blindly accept something as truth based off of one source. And yes, Wikipedia is a great site! One of the best things to exist on the interwebs.
Post a Comment