Wikipedia is a free, widely used online encyclopedia, wherein the entries can be modified by anyone.
That is where the catch is.
I am not totally against Wikipedia. Wikipedia gives the opportunity for anyone to create an encyclopedia entry, which was once a class project in college (though not mine). It can be used as a quick - yet crude - research tool, just to get a general idea of a topic. My professor sometimes borrows images from Wikipedia to illustrate biological mechanisms in class. Many articles are reviewed, or scrutinized, by the world; Wikipedia's hope/argument is that since the people who read Wikipedia include those who are knowledgeable on the subject(s), any mistake found on the article can be easily corrected by them. In time, the information presented in the article will be "balanced" or almost (or totally) accurate. I think that Wikipedia provides a good service to the global community by providing easily accessible information.
However, as a warning to college students, Wikipedia is not truly peer-reviewed like academic journals, such as Nature, Science, and Journal of Counseling Psychology (which you usually have to subscribe to or access through a library/university). Many professors do not accept Wikipedia as a reference in college research papers. Since the articles can be modified by anyone, some of the information can actually be false or inaccurate; vandalism can occur. (If you cite a certain statement from an entry, there is a chance that it may be altered by the time your professor checks it out.) Also, you do not know who the authors are, which is important when doing your Works Cited list.
Just like Google, you cannot trust everything on Wikipedia. It is still OK to check it out for a rough idea of a particular subject and maybe borrow pictures (remember to cite in order to avoid plagiarism), but if you would like to do a presentation and/or research paper with good quality and reliable information, you can use the library, e-journals, and/or databases, which include www.pubmed.gov and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO).
This applies to blogging and reporting as well. (It would not be appropriate for journalists to cite information from Wikipedia unless they are writing about the site.) Arguments derived from Wikipedia are not strong and can be doubted.
For more information on the advantages and disadvantages, you may check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
I often start my research on a particular topic at Wikipedia but unless my quest for knowledge on a particular topic is very shallow it seldom stops there.
I as surprised to hear about the Ayn Rand bias. The bias I notice is often distinctly socialist which would be close to the opposite. I don't mind seeing the socialist point of view on a particular topic but it often seems like the other side of the argument is missing or underwhelmingly presented.
Overall, I think it is a great resource and when Wikipedia pops up on a google I usually look.
Therefore, does that mean that there should be stricter "peer" review in Wikipedia that should at least review each entry before allowing it to be online?
My school's server is actually blocked from posting articles on Wikipedia because a couple friends of mine started spamming it with entries about our teachers.
Yes, Wikipedia is reliable! To make any editations to its content you have to get it approved by the wikipedia board (if there is such a thing). Anyways, it does have to be true facts.
Wikipedia, Travelpedia, and all those other -pedias are all complete crappola. Most of the articles are written by people with the skills of an 8th grader.
No matter how reliable you think your resources are, it's always a good idea to look at multiple resources. While I agree the easy editablity of Wikipedia can mean it includes inaccurate and incomplete information, I also think it can provide some useful information.
The entertainment stuff is pretty cool. Tons of info on South Park episodes and other TV shows.
I can follow up on TV episodes I missed or find the background of a TV series through wikipedia.
Wikipedia is definitely a good springboard for starting a research paper. Not only does it help you to get a general outline of your topic, but it also comes in handy when you scroll down to the citations, giving potential resources for research. Of course Wikipedia is going to be biased, but what isn't?
--Mike
I use Wikipedia if I'm just looking up stuff, never to do a research paper. For that I just go through my school's library database which everything in it is approved by the school. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that every school has one. And that's what they should use.
I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. ~Booker T. Washington
I find the main reasons I use Wikipedia are (1) finishing a crossword puzzle or (2) solving an arguement or (3) just searching random information to know things.
I feel sad for any individual (without enough common sense) who would actually try to use it as a source academically. You can definately use it as a diving board into a subject to help you search further, but I would never use it as an ultimate source.
Also, when speaking of politics, it is best to look at sites that will represent all sides of your argument, not just the side you are trying to support. This way you have a full range of rebuttals ready to go along with opposing ideas to better understand a specific topic.
An additional problem is that there is a closely knit team of administrators, referred to by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales as "the cabal," that subtly impose a distinct ideology on articles pertaining to politics, economics, history, and philosophy. In many ways this reflects Jimbo's own adherence to the doctrines of Ayn Rand. Much of the internal activity of Wikipedia revolves around finding ways to enforce this ideological perspective, and does not stop short of the banning of dissenting editors from the project.
I hadn't heard about the Wales/Ayn Rand connection. I'm not sure if that makes me like Wikipedia less, or hate Ayn Rand less. Maybe a little of both?
But Ayn Rand is awesome...
--Mike
She's loony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8&feature=related
After over a year, I totally redact that statement. Ayn Rand is the worst individualist/capitalist ever.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Thank you.
Retraction appreciated.
Interesting. Yes, articles on Wikipedia can be biased. Just wondering, what is the ideology being promoted through Wikipedia?