\ufeffName:<\/p>\n
Institution:<\/p>\n
Tutor:<\/p>\n
Date: <\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
While a great number of people back Wikipedia\u2019s wide range of information, its ever-increasing popularity is raising certain questions in the academic circles. Over the past few years, Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia, has received a great deal of criticism for issues relating to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability. In addition, some intellectuals argue that Wikipedia is filled with inaccuracies which affect the research process. One therefore is left to wonder whether Wikipedia can be trusted as a reliable source of information. This particular essay seeks to evaluate the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information.<\/p>\n
It can be argued that Wikipedia is a trusted source of information based on the fact that it is one of the largest peer-reviewed as well as a regulated information source available all over the world. According to Waters (2007), Wikipedia is collaboratively written by a large number of its readers. Large numbers of these people are constantly improving it, making thousands of changes each and every hour, with all the changes recorded on article histories as well as latest changes. Moreover, inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly by one of the many daily visitors to the site. The process works in a way that when someone observes an inaccuracy in an entry, he\/she makes the change immediately. He\/she does not need to inform an editor, await verification, or even confirm from sources. Therefore, according to Waters (2007), since entries are tracked and appropriate changes made, people tend to make correct changes or corrections. As a result, it can therefore be argued out that Wikipedia is a trusted source of information.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Stross (2006) objects the fact that Wikipedia is a trusted source. This is because the site accords equal rights to everyone to contribute to its articles. This questions the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. Stross (2007) argues that the reputation of Wikipedia and its internal editorial process as a trusted source can only be gain by having a single authority guarantee for the quality of a particular article. With anyone visiting the site being an author or an editor, changing and adding entries, there is difficulty dealing with intellectual disagreements. This creates suspicion as to the reliability of the information especially when they lack the expertise to judge the content. According to Stross (2006) therefore Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source of information.<\/p>\n
Wikipedia can also be argued a reliable source of information based on the fact that it provokes a given measure of critical thinking especially to student\u2019s approach to sources for research. As highlighted by Stross (2006), thousands of college professors and secondary school teachers encourage the use of Wikipedia as it provides a comprehensible boundary that any person with a typing as well as some minimal search capabilities can master. As a result, it is able to pay off in terms of building up a knowledge base as well as the ability to come up with best practices and training rapidly. In this case, it Wikipedia can be argued to be a reliable and trusted source of information.<\/p>\n
Stross (2006) yet again argues that impressive computer insights of students cannot be used to judge the impressive levels of critical thinking, especially when it comes to evaluating the reliability of new information tools at their disposal, and the information such tools provide. Stross (2006) highlights therefore that despite the fact that the internet has opened up new highways of information, it is important that people spot the potholes. In this case, it can be argued that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source of information.<\/p>\n
According to Stross (2006), the openness of Wikipedia can also be used to argue for the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information. This is based on the fact that openness ensures accuracy. A reader browsing the site may notice something he\/she believes is incorrect and updates it. The openness of the information ensures it is accurate. This concept as highlighted by Stross (2006) has taken media to another level and it works. Based on this ideology, it can therefore be argued that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.<\/p>\n
However, according to Waters (2007), the accepted correction and openness of the Wikipedia leaves more questions than answers regarding its credibility. One is therefore left to wonder whether the acknowledged correction improves or destroys the original version of the work. In this case, Wikipedia\u2019s reliability is viewed with suspicion, thus regarded as an unreliable source of information (Kapp, p178).<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
From the above analysis, what is evident is that the greatest strengths of Wikipedia are also its greatest weaknesses. Anonymous, unaccountable, voluntary, often non-expert yet passionate editors built Wikipedia. However, their ambiguity ensures that Wikipedia cannot be deemed a reliable source of information.<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
HYPERLINK “http:\/\/www.google.co.ke\/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Karl+M.+Kapp%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=8” Kapp, Karl .Gadgets, games, and gizmos for learning: tools and techniques for transferring know-how from boomers to gamers. John Wiley & Sons, 2007,p173.<\/p>\n
Stross, Randall. Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source, New York Times, 2006, Pp.1.<\/p>\n
Waters, Neil. Wikipedia: The Latest in Open Source, Middlebury Campus, 2007, Pp.1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ufeffName: Institution: Tutor: Date: Introduction While a great number of people back Wikipedia\u2019s wide range of information, its ever-increasing popularity<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n