Over the course of the last few weeks we have learned about several methods of research. One of these methods was working with Wikipedia. While working with Wikipedia I realized that this crowd-sourced tool is actually well maintained, accurate, and could actually be considered a conventional method of research. However, Timothy Messer-Kruse, a professor in the School of Cultural and Critical Studies at Bowling Green State University and author of The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia newspaper article, would say otherwise. Based on his article it is evident that Messer-Kruse would disagree with our method of research and would recommend that we deviate from such research. In it Messer-Kruse uses strong and biased language when referencing
…show more content…
Thus, by stating that the policy is flawed and causes problems he is negating the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. Therefore, furthering the notion that Messer-Kruse will not accept Wikipedia as a valid form of research. Moreover, the author concludes his article with a paragraph that sarcastically mentions how maybe in the future his research will finally be used in Wikipedia. He states, “I guess this gives me a glimmer of hope that someday, perhaps before another century goes by, enough of my fellow scholars will adopt my views that I can change that Wikipedia entry. Until then I will have to continue to shout that the sky was blue” (Messer-Kruse 4). He states this immediately after an editor tells him that their job, as editors, is to report what reliable sources write. It is apparent that the author misunderstood the editor and thought that the editor was invaliding the author’s research. Hence, the author responds sarcastically by saying that maybe one day his work will be accept by enough people that they can change the Wikipedia page. His sarcastic response to this statement, and negative view of the editor’s response demonstrate that he does not view Wikipedia as a reliable and legitimate method of
Thus, by stating that the policy is flawed and causes problems he is negating the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. Therefore, furthering the notion that Messer-Kruse will not accept Wikipedia as a valid form of research. Moreover, the author concludes his article with a paragraph that sarcastically mentions how maybe in the future his research will finally be used in Wikipedia. He states, “I guess this gives me a glimmer of hope that someday, perhaps before another century goes by, enough of my fellow scholars will adopt my views that I can change that Wikipedia entry. Until then I will have to continue to shout that the sky was blue” (Messer-Kruse 4). He states this immediately after an editor tells him that their job, as editors, is to report what reliable sources write. It is apparent that the author misunderstood the editor and thought that the editor was invaliding the author’s research. Hence, the author responds sarcastically by saying that maybe one day his work will be accept by enough people that they can change the Wikipedia page. His sarcastic response to this statement, and negative view of the editor’s response demonstrate that he does not view Wikipedia as a reliable and legitimate method of