Wikipedia Is Credible

1369 Words 5 Pages
Many people are questioning the use of Wikipedia as a legitimate research source. A legitimate source can be defined as a source that is well written with factual information by an author who is credible in the field to which the source is discussing. According to this definition, Wikipedia is not a legitimate source because anyone can contribute to an article with little to no expertise. Not everyone agrees, however. Some people say that Wikipedia is on its way to becoming a credible source by having many individuals critique each and every article to make it reliable information. Others say that Wikipedia was doomed from the start because any one can put information on the site and it may take longer than necessary to put take down that false …show more content…
As mentioned in “A False Wikipedia Biography,” the author proclaims that the “wonderful world of Wikipedia” is a place where “millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference ‘facts’” (Seigenthaler). Seigenthaler also mentions that those “facts” are “composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge” (“A False Wikipedia Biography”). How can over a million of articles published on Wikipedia be written, edited, and reviewed by people with no expertise or knowledge on the topic they are presenting? Well considering what Wikipedia actually means, it is quite easy. “Derived form a Hawaiian word mean ‘quick,’ the term wiki conveys the swiftness and ease with which users can access information on and contribute content to such a site” with no identification or credentials (“Wiki” qtd. in James). According to Randall Stross, “Wikipedia invites anyone to pitch in, writing an article or editing someone else’s” where “no expertise is required” (“Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”). As mentioned previously, a legitimate research source must be credible by establishing an author that has credentials to affirm what he or she is talking about is true. Wikipedia does not establish this principle whatsoever. Without credibility, Wikipedia cannot be bounded to reliability; therefore, Wikipedia “should not be relied on as much as actual class material” (Stanford Daily). Neil Waters, a college historian professor, suggested regulations to his department concerning Wikipedia. In his suggestion, he said “students are responsible for the accuracy of information they provide. Wikipedia is not an acceptable [source]…” (Wikiphobia). By being an open source, Wikipedia has lost every change of being a reliable source and a value to any professor. Even Stanford Daily agreed by saying

Related Documents