Sunday, September 7, 2008

Wikipedia: Reliable or Not?

This is a response to the essay "The Book Stops Here" written by Daniel H. Pink.

I believe that everybody has used wikipedia at least once to check something out, or even to kill time. Wikipedia might not be the most reliable source to write a paper on, but it can be a deciding factor of a bet between a bunch of friends. I am not sure how many articles are on Wikipedia, but it sure beat the hell out of a regular encyclopedia, and the best part is that it is free.

Professors and teachers do not respect Wikipedia's reputation as a source for a paper because the articles are not thoroughly checked and re-read for errors. Plus anyone at any time could edit a particluar article and change some of the information that one used for their paper. I remember when i was in high school people would always change articles on Wikipedia. We would go to the computer lab for study hall and to just kill time we would edit Wikipedia. I would always just put my name in articles. I always put my name under the "Famous People" section in my hometown Phoenixville, Pa. I would also write funny things about my friends in certain articles. I was one of those people that helped contribute to the fact that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source and is certainly not invited to a research paper's bibliography, but I think that is what makes Wikipedia, Wikipedia.

It is a great "encyclopedia" to use to find out a quick answer to a question, or search for such a small and a not-well known fact. Its also great because people are constantly updating it. Daniel Pink mentioned this over and over again in his essay, but I'll say it one more time. Overall I'd have to agree with almost everything that Pink has said about Wikipedia and his essay, but I think he could have left the little biography about Wales out of it.

1 comment:

Christine Vallorani said...

Hi, Jim. I thought that your response to the article was very interesting. I didn't read this article, I read the other one, but I feel like I have a good understanding on what the article was about. I have actually never had a problem with Wikipedia, but I agree with you that it is more of a source when you're trying to learn a quick fact. The only time I've heard about a specific mistake on Wikipedia was actually when the Sixers were trying to get Josh Smith this past summer...Wikipedia said he currently plays for the Sixers, which obviously he does not. I thought that that was an interesting connection to your response to the article.