With the current developing world, different research methods have been incorporated into the system. The main method of research includes the use of the Internet in obtaining the required information needed. Wikipedia has emerged as one of the sources in which most people strive to get their information. Consisting of millions of articles in over 270 languages, this free online encyclopedia provides information to millions of persons visiting the internet with the aim of getting various types of information. The pages within this encyclopedia are created by over 80,000 people writing together simultaneously about various topics and subjects every day and that means that Wikipedia is always updated with everyday stories making it to the internet instantly instead of waiting for a long time for that to happen. To display its openness, Wikipedia allows anyone who has the access to be able to review the changes made by another party linking the history of each revision and therefore anyone who visits the article will be able to know of its re
Introduction
Wikipedia being one of the biggest and most visited online research encyclopedia brings into question its credibility. Ever since it was developed in 2001(Greenstein), Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia has been under attack as to whether its credibility in information is assured. There have been various claims from teachers, professors and other online encyclopedias stating that it is a source that shouldn’t receive much trust from those seeking to find information from the internet. All these claims are due to some of the features expresses by this online encyclopedia. Due to its features of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and other various features, places facts on the table on how true it can be compared to the rest of the encyclopedias available within the same online portal. This research aims to bring out for sure whether Wikipedia online encyclopedia can be considered as a credible source. The research also aims to see whether Wikipedia qualifies to be a source of information for online and if so what changes need to be made. Also, this research will bring to our knowledge the distinguishing factors that Wikipedia displays that sets it apart from other sources of information. Throughout the research, we will be able to establish the reliability of this online encyclopedia in areas to do with accuracy, appropriateness, comprehensiveness, stability of the articles published in it and its sources and also the quality of writing that editors use in updating the encyclopedia. Assessments of the encyclopedia will also be done to be able to come up with a comprehensive conclusion of whether it was wrong to some persons to conclude that the Wikipedia online encyclopedia was not suitable for research and whether Wikipedia can actually be a useful tool in the mining of information from the Internet.
Wikipedia’s Credibility
According to Danah Boyd through the various questions she posed to various persons, Wikipedia online encyclopedia is not a credible source of information. The encyclopedia itself is filled with a lot of errors and misguiding information as it can be freely edited by anyone (Bullock 765). Further information based on the fact that it is uncommonly hard to know the author of the articles published within this encyclopedia brings forth the question as to how credible their sources can be. Wikipedia does not have the relevant citations that would bind the credibility of the articles published and neither does it provide the necessary references that in case one would wish to ascertain the trueness expressed in its articles. Teachers in various states encourage their students not to use Wikipedia as their first sources during their coursework research and some go to the extent of asking them not to include it as part of their references. The point made by Boyd of teachers influencing students to go to the library so as to get writing information brings about disregard for most digital information sources. It is shown though, that many textbooks and books that are in libraries in general tend to be outdated because of the rapidly changing information in the world nowadays. The credibility of Wikipedia belief, not certain as to whether the sentiments of the teachers mirror in their students’ still produces the conclusion that it does not meet the standards of a credible encyclopedia for it to be used as a first source during a research (Bullock 766).
Boyd further explains that even though almost every student has been warned against using this online encyclopedia, most of them end up using it in their research in the long run. Through the usage of the encyclopedia later by students created an unwritten narrative that somehow this online source, Wikipedia, can be a credible source.
As stated previously, Wikipedia has over 84,000 everyday editors that ensure that the articles within the encyclopedia are up to date and legit (Bartett). The numerous ability to edit the information by various persons raises the credibility bar of the encyclopedia. Unlike other online sources like Encarta, Wikipedia involves various persons in getting real information out of people’s liberty. The degree of one’s freeness to add or remove various information within the encyclopedia brings forth its credibility. Wikipedia itself acknowledges facts that false information could infiltrate and be published in articles in the encyclopedia and it therefore keeps a record of edits for the observers to ensure that falsely published information can be changed later and update with new and more reliable content worthy of every researcher (Barnet). By looking at the history of the edits made on the page, and keeping up with the discussions and debates surrounding the edits, one can draw a sane conclusion as whether to use the article and the information in it wholly, or in part. Just like in ‘The Inevitability of Bumps by Susan Stellin, turbulences sometimes hit a plane during its flights and it may end up all shaky giving the passenger in it the perspective that something bad could happen to the plane. The plane industry confirms that the turbulence that hits the plane rarely causes any substantial damage to the plane and this may be similar to Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia for knowledge. Even though this Encyclopedia may have changes here and there in the way its articles are presented, it is unwise to take into assumption that the few turbulences it has in its edits and lack of citations can necessarily discredit the whole encyclopedia. Wikipedia therefore can be a reliable educational tool to anyone who constructively knows how to use it.
Books and publications even though viewed as trustworthy by most institutions, the contents contained in them are quickly outdated and may not necessarily be factual (Vogel). The rate in which an outdated book and publication can be updated and replaced is slow and therefore in the end, most books end up being outdated and are still retained and used for learning purposes. Boyd’s interviews showed that teens loved finding inaccuracies within their own textbooks, and the more they did learn, the more inaccuracies they found. Furthermore, writers of this very books include their biasness into the academic text in order to bring out a more concrete debate various social and political beliefs. For example, Texas in the United States sharpens the belief that the founding fathers of America were all of Christian origin and this brings about tension among historians who seek to contradict this information (Bullock 768). Historical books differ on perspective and this is explained by Danah who grew up with the confusion of hearing his Canadian father complained about America’s history being outright offensive unlike the British (Bullock 768). Wikipedia unlike textbooks most times forces a resolution of conflicting accounts. Their intensive being to come up with a general account that will be a satisfying to both parties. The changes made in merging the conflicting ideas is also explained through the edit notes and therefore any researcher can come to a conclusion as whether to use the information found in this online encyclopedia or not (Bullock 769).
Findings
Even though Wikipedia as a source of information may be highly discredited by other persons, it offers a whole package of knowledge that is necessary for each person.
In Ali Heinekmap’s, Not Just Another Teen Movie, criticism expressed over a certain idea does not necessarily mean that it is not favorable to be used. Juno’s early pregnancy hits her up with the lack of knowledge of what to do with the unborn child before she comes up with the decision of giving it up for adoption to Mark and Vanessa (Bullock). Even though the decision that she makes seem unrealistic but it does not bring to light the fact that she is wrong in what she does. Taking the same situation with Wikipedia, unlike other sources in information is sourced from like Books, it is an online encyclopedia which has its way in keeping its information updated. And since this information cannot be decided as to whether it’s legitimate or not, it cannot also be discredited as false information.
Conclusion
Wikipedia operates its information in a way that could bring about the establishment of accurate information to researchers. Through its constant updates by various persons across the globe, this online encyclopedia is kept up to date and realistic to the everyday searches. Wikipedia is not accurate and any better than any other encyclopedia and information source, but it does play an important and vital role in ensuring that information is accessible to all persons. Information published is also brought out in a way that does not bring biasness to any party but brings out the real intention which is to relay information and not to take sites or promote a certain aspect. Finally, with their limitations and clearly outright weaknesses, the Wikipedia is a work in progress project and is important in making the expansion of knowledge a success. They also through technology promote a valuable way in promoting digital literacy.
Works Cited
Barnett, David "Can We Trust Wikipedia? 1.4 Billion People Can't Be Wrong". Independent, 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/wikipedia-explained-what-is-it-trustworthy-how-work-wikimedia-2030-a8213446.html. Accessed 3 May 2018.
Bartett, Jamie. "How Much Should We Trust Wikipedia?". The Telegraph, 2015, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/11539958/How-much-can-we-trust-Wikipedia.html. Accessed 3 May 2018.
Bullock, Richard et al. The Norton Field Guide To Writing With Readings And Handbook. 4th ed., Richard Bullock, 2016, pp. 763-770.
Greenstein, Shane, and Feng Zhu. "Can Wikipedia Be Trusted?". Kellog Insight, 2015, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/can-wikipedia-be-trusted. Accessed 3 May 2018.
Vogel, Mira. "The Great Wikipedia Controversy". Digital Education Team Blog, 2014, https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/digital-education/2014/08/11/the-great-wikipedia-controversy/. Accessed 3 May 2018.
