In a time and age where 40,000 google searches are made every single second, random people should not be able to edit the website Wikipedia. They should need certification. One reason is that one of the administrators has made a lot of edits we do not know are certified. A second reason is that some jobs and occupations require correct facts. My final reason is that they are losing credibility for an easy problem to fix.
My first reason is that we can’t tell if the Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia are certified or have certified facts. My first reason is that even though the person who made the most edits on Wikipedia is a trusted administrator, we have no way to prove that the 2 million edits that he made on Wikipedia were credible facts that are proven. The top 4 users of Wikipedia each have over a million edits logged, just to themselves. All together they have almost 6 million edits logged. Just the first 4 top users of Wikipedia! We have no way to prove that those almost 6 million edits were credible facts. That was from a website that auto tracks the amount of edits made on Wikipedia. Also, in the list of 5,000 top editors of Wikipedia, there are some people who haven’t been assigned a job by Wikipedia. They have no initial by their name showing that they belong to Wikipedia and are …show more content…
When Wikipedia is looked up on Wikipedia, look to see where Nature compared Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and on that page, it talks about how most criticism of Wikipedia states that it contains “some truths, half-truths, and some falsehoods.” They have been criticized many times for their being a free editorial site that anybody with an account can use. There not as popular as they were when they were first started. Why aren’t they fixing the problem of it being a free editorial site? It’s as if they don’t care that we can’t even use their website in
My first reason is that we can’t tell if the Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia are certified or have certified facts. My first reason is that even though the person who made the most edits on Wikipedia is a trusted administrator, we have no way to prove that the 2 million edits that he made on Wikipedia were credible facts that are proven. The top 4 users of Wikipedia each have over a million edits logged, just to themselves. All together they have almost 6 million edits logged. Just the first 4 top users of Wikipedia! We have no way to prove that those almost 6 million edits were credible facts. That was from a website that auto tracks the amount of edits made on Wikipedia. Also, in the list of 5,000 top editors of Wikipedia, there are some people who haven’t been assigned a job by Wikipedia. They have no initial by their name showing that they belong to Wikipedia and are …show more content…
When Wikipedia is looked up on Wikipedia, look to see where Nature compared Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and on that page, it talks about how most criticism of Wikipedia states that it contains “some truths, half-truths, and some falsehoods.” They have been criticized many times for their being a free editorial site that anybody with an account can use. There not as popular as they were when they were first started. Why aren’t they fixing the problem of it being a free editorial site? It’s as if they don’t care that we can’t even use their website in