 |
| Screen Shot by Jen Vandermeer Wikipedia - Disorders of Calcium Metabolism March 22, 2012 |
For those of you who don’t know what a stub is (I didn’t either until this week), it’s an incomplete Wikipedia entry. A stub can be incomplete in many ways; for example, it may not have references to support the written information, or there is just very little information written about a particular subject. Perhaps I’ve been living in the dark until this week, but I didn’t realize that just anyone could go on Wikipedia, create a user name and password, and edit the articles. Basically, anyone with access to the internet can write whatever they want on Wikipedia and be completely unaccountable for what they contribute. I was aware of the fact that Wikipedia was not a consistently reliable source of accurate information and was not appropriate to use in academic writing, but I had no idea any person in the world could post whatever random information or nonsense they wanted. This makes me wonder about how much information I've read on Wikipedia and interpreted as factual.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is constantly scanning updated articles and weeding out as much of the misinformation as they can. While some people may use Wikipedia as place to vandalize, others use it as a place to contribute their knowledge and share their expertise on millions of interesting topics. There are many well written articles on Wikipedia that contain valuable information. Wikipedia’s “featured articles” are considered the most well written articles by the editors. These articles satisfy the site’s specific style requirements and are accurate, complete, and neutral. Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information, when you need a broad overview of a topic or a quick explanation of an unfamiliar subject.
Wikipedia definitely has its pros and cons. While it can be a convenient way to find fast information, it is important to use this information carefully and skeptically. Erika Brown provides an in depth look at the benefits and drawbacks to using Wikipedia as a primary information source. One good way to find out if the Wikipedia information you’re reading has credibility, is to check out the references used for that particular article. If these sources are academic, peer reviewed articles, there’s a good chance that at least some of the information you are reading is reliable. As for using Wikipedia as a reference for academic writing, it’s probably not a good idea if you want your work to be taken seriously or have credibility.
Wikipedia can be a very good place to start research as you indicated in the blog post. An effective way of utilizing Wikipedia for a research paper is to examine the references, further reading and external links sections. These sections will often help indicate if the information presented in the entry is accurate. Furthermore, it gives individuals a place to look for scholarly, peer reviewed articles. It acts as a central database regarding one subject which can help save valuable time when conducting research.
ReplyDeleteThinking more and more about the reliability of Wikipedia, as most of us have brought up in our blog posts, I wonder if the company should change their policy and not allow just anybody to automatically post new information. You mentioned "featured articles" and I think Wikipedia should aim to have most, if not all of their posts geared towards meeting this standard. Perhaps they can still allow anyone to sign up, but before their edited article is officially posted, it be reviewed by the professional staff before it is deemed appropriate for the site. This way, maybe vandalism could be stopped and society could begin looking at Wikipedia as more of a reliable source, since many of us certainly do not see it that way currently.
ReplyDelete