In discussions of Wikipedia, one controversial issue has been its credibility. On the one hand, some like Neil L. Waters argue that it is an unreliable source. On the other hand, Darren Crovitz and W. Scott Smoot contend that Wikipedia can be as reliable as any traditional reference when used properly. My own view is alongside Crovitz and Smoot, Wikipedia should be considered credible if the information given is accurate. If you don’t want to rely solely on Wikipedia it could at least be a good starting point for research.
Wikipedia is considered to possibly contain too much malicious content because of its open-source theme allowing articles to be edited by too many different people. Where is the proof that this content outweighs the genuine articles with factual information? Throughout my years of school research I was steered away from Wikipedia because of the allegations of it containing too much content that is not true. I have used Wikipedia several times throughout researching topics and I don’t recall a time where I was led to content that is incorrect or intentionally vandalized. I would search several sites looking for answers to questions that I needed to double check because I could not trust Wikipedia and every time the answer that I find would give be the same answer that I could easily get on Wikipedia. This …show more content…
Waters in Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class would say “Wikipedia owes its incredible growth to open-source editing, which is also the root of its greatest weakness” (16). I disagree with this statement and agree with Crovitz and Smoot instead, in Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe they state, “Because Wikipedia is always evolving, its entries often include unconventional sections that might never have been included in a traditional encyclopedia” (93). To me this means that you could actually find valuable information in Wikipedia as it becomes available that you would not find in Encyclopedias since they are not updated as Wikipedia
Wikipedia is considered to possibly contain too much malicious content because of its open-source theme allowing articles to be edited by too many different people. Where is the proof that this content outweighs the genuine articles with factual information? Throughout my years of school research I was steered away from Wikipedia because of the allegations of it containing too much content that is not true. I have used Wikipedia several times throughout researching topics and I don’t recall a time where I was led to content that is incorrect or intentionally vandalized. I would search several sites looking for answers to questions that I needed to double check because I could not trust Wikipedia and every time the answer that I find would give be the same answer that I could easily get on Wikipedia. This …show more content…
Waters in Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class would say “Wikipedia owes its incredible growth to open-source editing, which is also the root of its greatest weakness” (16). I disagree with this statement and agree with Crovitz and Smoot instead, in Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe they state, “Because Wikipedia is always evolving, its entries often include unconventional sections that might never have been included in a traditional encyclopedia” (93). To me this means that you could actually find valuable information in Wikipedia as it becomes available that you would not find in Encyclopedias since they are not updated as Wikipedia