Wikipedia wiki 2 - Recently Updated Pages

Wikipedia is not reliable!!!!

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:21:42 CDT

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where the entries can modified, edited by anyone who has access to internet. http://www.progressiveu.org/000633-wikipedia-is-it-really-reliable. Thats why It is difficult to say “wikipedia reliable resource”. Yes, it can be helpful to know some statements, terms in general. To know some terms from different points of view. But, in wikipedia we can’t find the exact definition what was written by scientists and professionals. Because, even the terms written by professionals,after some period of time it can be edited by any user of Internet. For example, the definition what I used today on project, it can be changed tomorrow. For that reason many professors don’t accept the wikipedia as reliable resourse on project works.

The main characteristic of Journalism, mass communication or any information is its credibility. Without it everything will be inaccurate information or vandalism. So, I think, wikipedia is not reliable resource. if we need information, we should have reliable , accurate information what are written by licensed scientists or professionals.

Mura

Wikipedia - believe or not to believe?

Natalie_Sunny — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:14:45 CDT

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.

Zarina

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:46:59 CDT

Be honest I do not care wether it is reliable or not. I do not
search information that is reliable for me by online. But, sure i
was gathering some information from wikipedia related to my
home assignments at KIMEP , and i can say that they were
reliable, i mean i got the exact info that i need. But that "reliability" lasted not so long, actually... Because problems with the source's credibility started when i took more serious classes like RRW, or Principles of marketing, etc. where the citation and the system of references was very strict and demanded from students more responsibility for the information they get and use for the projects. :-) Of course, I heard a
lot about Wikipedia from other people and they all are
satisfied by it’s sources. However there is one considerable minus - Wikipedia is often not accepted by our proffesors as a true objective and authorised source because it is organized exactly in a way that every person has an opportunity to go and edit entries! Another problem that is related more to student affairs is that there may be such cases when 15 students from 30 in class ( i.e.)
will bring the same assignment, but from other hand i don’t
think that it depends on the source, it depend how person is
searching.
In the end i want to say that Wikipedia is very very popular
source especially for students, so where is the demand their is
a supply, isn’t it?

Natasha S.

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:44:10 CDT

This is very interesting and new for me to know that Wikipedia is based on the concept of open source and participatory journalism. I’ve always used to enter “wikipedia” in the search option of my Yahoo! in order to find the main well-known facts about somebody or something. I have never doubted the reliability of the information I looked through.
For me, I always find very useful information there, also I usually check the information through various other sites, connected to my topics. Thus, the credibility of the information from Wikipedia could not be doubted, though I should say that it would better use the main factual things from there, rather than opinions or information should be checked somewhere else. But nevertheless, it concerns all internet sources in general, which of course are still very doubtful. The question about reliability of the Wikipedia is quite controversial. On the one hand, Wikipedia untrustworthy helps students to develop critical thinking skills. on the other hand, we can not actually trust Wikipedia on 100%. If you will get on the main page of this source you will see “Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Thus, what I'm doing now with other people's words on wikipedia, editing the material, someone else can possibly edit the history of WWII. This is not what I need actually when attacking my PC for some good and credible information.

Home

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:13:28 CDT

This is very interesting and new for me to know that Wikipedia is based on the concept of open source and participatory journalism. I’ve always used to enter “wikipedia” in the search option of my Yahoo! in order to find the main well-known facts about somebody or something. I have never doubted the reliability of the information I looked through. But, if u enter the site and read it more carefully, you will see these words: “Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Now how can we trust this source? I usually do, when I need something really fast, but I am sure that I will never use this source for serious projects and research. More over nowadays majority of teachers, and professors prohibit their students to use this source as a reference in their papers. So I can conclude that this source is very comfortable to use, but not 100% reliable. But, on the other hand, some professors do not prohibit but even encourage students to use Wiki source, as Wikipedia untrustworthy helps students to develop critical thinking skills. “You need to be carefull about trusting all that you read”

Natasha S.