Thoughts on Wikipedia (Module 3)

Image

In school we have always been told never to use Wikipedia as a source of our information as it is not reliable and may contain errors. My opinion is somewhat in the middle of this controversy. I have always used Wikipedia for personal use or as a starter of gaining my information or to gain some clarification on a certain topic as it is easily understandable and not as confusing as some research papers can be. That being said, when doing research for school, I will always try to find academic papers and peer reviewed journals to confirm and support my information and make sure that it is correct. After reading this week’s assigned readings my confidence in Wikipedia has not really changed. I have always kept in mind while doing research that most things I read will be biased based on the author or the scientist’s opinion. It is good practice to get in the habit of not relying on just one source, that to gain a greater understanding and one that is the most accurate you must take information from many sources. To say that Wikipedia is not a good source of information is not true in my opinion. Yes it can be edited by anyone but I think that gives it an advantage. It will not be just one persons view on the topic and has the opportunity for anyone to fix its mistakes where most other types of documents cannot.  In the article by Nature, it relates the Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica and found that there is not a significant difference in the number of errors found (Giles, 2005). The reality of it is that no one is perfect and mistakes will happen. Whether you have an expert writing an entry or multiple people contributing to one, there will always be that chance of error. The thing about mistakes is that they can be fixed and Wikipedia is doing just that. Jensen states in his article that there are around 3300 active editors that are on the lookout for errors and vandalism (Jensen, 2012). With that many people watching out for errors there is a higher chance that it will be corrected when found.  

There is an idea discussed in The Social Life of documents that I have never thought about before reading this article and it really stuck with me. It says that “in passing between communities, documents play an important role, bringing people from different groups together to negotiate and coordinate common practices” (Brown & Duguid, 1996). Documents found on Wikipedia give the public an opportunity for collaboration and connectivity between users. In a way it brings the community together where they can share their knowledge in a collaboration to create one document together and are also able correct each other when needed. This is different than most documents where you cannot actively change what is said or add in more information, which I think more sites should think about doing.

Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.

Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182

Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to headNature. 438, pp 900-901.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Thoughts on Wikipedia (Module 3)

  1. I completely agree with your final verdict on the credibility of Wikipedia. Looking for information from a variety of sources will always produce the most well rounded thoughts and ideas. I also really liked that social aspect of documents. A recent example I can think of in relation to this was studying for COMM 2F50. Members of our seminar were all friends on Facebook and from there about 10 of us managed to connect and collaborate on a study guide through a live wiki document. It was cool because I could see who was using it, watch as they added things, make suggestions and we all corrected each others wrong information. In the end we all did pretty well on the exam and I think that knowledge from others was extremely helpful.

    Sarah L

  2. After reading everyone’s blogs, I think it can be said that we all agree on Wikipedia’s ease of use and convenience. Today that is what everything is about, gaining customers due to convenience and ease of effort. I too, still use Wikipedia to gain a better understanding of my schoolwork, get a starting point, and verify information.
    I believe that the use of different opinions and knowledge is one of its strongest benefits. Yes, it can cause skepticism since we do not know the level of knowledge and education the individuals that created or edited it have. What we do not consider is that many of these individuals are passionate about the topics and have done a lot of research or even went to school for them.
    I think the Nature article, by far, surprised me to most. The Encyclopedia has always been well respected and trusted then to say that Wikipedia compares to it completely changes views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s