Academic researcher, Danah Boyd, argues in her article, “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production”, of how using Wikipedia as a credible source should be accepted. Many students have been told to steer away from Wikipedia, but Boyd does a superb job of discussing how the information on Wikipedia is easy to understand, it is new and frequently evolving, and it is less bias than books. Some may say that Wikipedia isn’t credible because people can always change the information at any time, but Wikipedia has taken security measure to fix that problem. Boyd has mostly good evidence that proves that Wikipedia is a good source because it is knowledgeable and is able to fix their security problems with the use of examples of logos and
…show more content…
Even when I had been going through middle school and high school, my teachers had always been very clear about not using Wikipedia as a source. They would only go as far as to suggest that it could be used as a start for research, but never as an actual source for a project. She uses examples of student’s interviews, the fact that it is constantly updated, and how it has a better example of the American Revolution than an advanced class. She discusses how students had been told to not use Wikipedia as a “main source”, but they were not told why they were not allowed to use Wikipedia or why other sources were more trustworthy. People use Wikipedia to spread their knowledge and, it is usually much easier for people to understand a difficult topic if it is explained by another …show more content…
An example of pathos that Boyd used is of her own experience of how she was able to understand more about the American Revolution from Wikipedia rather than her AP American History class (769).She described that her textbook confused her about the American Revolution. But, she had learned more valuable information from Wikipedia which she actually understood.
The counter argument of the essay was that people who use Wikipedia are able to access information at any time to whatever they want. To disprove that claim, Boyd provides evidence of how Wikipedia works to stop these issues by maintaining “a record for observers” and a “list of hoaxes that significantly affected the site” (769). She clearly addressed the only counter argument that she had proposed. The information on Wikipedia is less bias than books that are written to achieve a certain viewpoint. Some authors attempt to convince or sway the reader towards a certain opinion or hypothesis. The author also gave an example of how Wikipedia is a “record of the process by which people share and demonstrate knowledge.” (767). But books are written with a specific opinion of the author in mind. For example, Boyd had mentioned that textbooks “often grow outdated” and how “some writers insert biases into texts” in order to enforce certain beliefs (767). She gave the example of how a Texas textbook inserted that
Even when I had been going through middle school and high school, my teachers had always been very clear about not using Wikipedia as a source. They would only go as far as to suggest that it could be used as a start for research, but never as an actual source for a project. She uses examples of student’s interviews, the fact that it is constantly updated, and how it has a better example of the American Revolution than an advanced class. She discusses how students had been told to not use Wikipedia as a “main source”, but they were not told why they were not allowed to use Wikipedia or why other sources were more trustworthy. People use Wikipedia to spread their knowledge and, it is usually much easier for people to understand a difficult topic if it is explained by another …show more content…
An example of pathos that Boyd used is of her own experience of how she was able to understand more about the American Revolution from Wikipedia rather than her AP American History class (769).She described that her textbook confused her about the American Revolution. But, she had learned more valuable information from Wikipedia which she actually understood.
The counter argument of the essay was that people who use Wikipedia are able to access information at any time to whatever they want. To disprove that claim, Boyd provides evidence of how Wikipedia works to stop these issues by maintaining “a record for observers” and a “list of hoaxes that significantly affected the site” (769). She clearly addressed the only counter argument that she had proposed. The information on Wikipedia is less bias than books that are written to achieve a certain viewpoint. Some authors attempt to convince or sway the reader towards a certain opinion or hypothesis. The author also gave an example of how Wikipedia is a “record of the process by which people share and demonstrate knowledge.” (767). But books are written with a specific opinion of the author in mind. For example, Boyd had mentioned that textbooks “often grow outdated” and how “some writers insert biases into texts” in order to enforce certain beliefs (767). She gave the example of how a Texas textbook inserted that