Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Wikipedia - believe or not to believe?
Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia which modestly aspires to "create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Its content is written and edited entirely by volunteers, working collaboratively.
Personally, I like Wikipedia. I like how entries are structured, I like its multilingual interface and the way users can turn from one entry to another following the relevant links. So, I think that it is a great depository of information of any kind for person that seeks knowledge on whatever topic. But if to speak of Wikipedia as a ground to make a judgment or some statement on then a question of its credibility arises inevitably.
Wikipedia has been often criticized for its “open source” approach to compilation of the entries. And the distrust seems to be completely understandable and make sens
e when you find out that the source is being written by different unknown people you have no idea about. How to trust in such a free accessible and easy updating source?
To my mind, there is a level of trust you may put on Wikipedia, because its main peculiarity of empowering any volunteer to write on his own can be also viewed as a strength - as we know each coin has two sides :-) So, on the one hand, if to think radically, it looks like an absurd to believe some crazy man (who knows?) who probably decided to rewrite the history of his country. Of course, I’m not claiming that every person has such a rich imagination, but nevertheless it’s possible. So, if this happens then the same “open sourceness” transforms into strength as it leaves an opportunity to all other people to check and edit the mistake. Thus, this process of checking and editing once makes the entry perfect. This can’t be reached by print editions so frequently; they only can be republished from time to time. I’ve read an interesting article “Why believe Wikipedia?” where the author brought a few fairly sensible reasons answering this question. First, he mentioned the nature of human judgment – people tend to believe information that is logically organized, linguistically correct and sounds right… Also, people always compare the information with their already stored knowledge on the subject. Secondly, a very important argument which I’ve already touched – a long edit history of an entry. “It becomes yet more credible if the discussion pages are long and rich”. And thirdly, a remarkable feature of Wiki’s pages is its “warning signs” that make readers be aware of possible mistakes and, thus, make Wikipedia more trustworthy. Because the more suspicious is that one who doesn’t doubt at all… :-) Natalie M.
Personally, I like Wikipedia. I like how entries are structured, I like its multilingual interface and the way users can turn from one entry to another following the relevant links. So, I think that it is a great depository of information of any kind for person that seeks knowledge on whatever topic. But if to speak of Wikipedia as a ground to make a judgment or some statement on then a question of its credibility arises inevitably.
Wikipedia has been often criticized for its “open source” approach to compilation of the entries. And the distrust seems to be completely understandable and make sens
e when you find out that the source is being written by different unknown people you have no idea about. How to trust in such a free accessible and easy updating source? To my mind, there is a level of trust you may put on Wikipedia, because its main peculiarity of empowering any volunteer to write on his own can be also viewed as a strength - as we know each coin has two sides :-) So, on the one hand, if to think radically, it looks like an absurd to believe some crazy man (who knows?) who probably decided to rewrite the history of his country. Of course, I’m not claiming that every person has such a rich imagination, but nevertheless it’s possible. So, if this happens then the same “open sourceness” transforms into strength as it leaves an opportunity to all other people to check and edit the mistake. Thus, this process of checking and editing once makes the entry perfect. This can’t be reached by print editions so frequently; they only can be republished from time to time. I’ve read an interesting article “Why believe Wikipedia?” where the author brought a few fairly sensible reasons answering this question. First, he mentioned the nature of human judgment – people tend to believe information that is logically organized, linguistically correct and sounds right… Also, people always compare the information with their already stored knowledge on the subject. Secondly, a very important argument which I’ve already touched – a long edit history of an entry. “It becomes yet more credible if the discussion pages are long and rich”. And thirdly, a remarkable feature of Wiki’s pages is its “warning signs” that make readers be aware of possible mistakes and, thus, make Wikipedia more trustworthy. Because the more suspicious is that one who doesn’t doubt at all… :-) Natalie M.
|
Natalie_Sunny |
Latest page update: made by Natalie_Sunny
, Jun 27 2007, 1:14 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by Natalie_Sunny
2 words added 1 word deleted 1 image added view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
