The+Pros+and+Cons+of+Wikipedia

[[image:Nohat-logo-nowords-bgwhite-200px.jpg width="101" height="100" align="left"]]
There is a great debate circling about the issue of whether or not Wikipedia, the ninth most visited space on the Internet (//Clark//), is a useful resource. Before deciding, take a look at the pros and cons of the research mechanism, as well as some comments from others who have experience with the resource.

__Pros of Wikipedia__

 * Includes 8.2 million articles in 253 different languages
 * Single largest Encyclopedia ever assembled
 * Simple and easy to use
 * Wikipedia laws require that the articles are written in a neutral point of view
 * Articles cannot contain original research
 * Articles must be based upon verifiable sources
 * Content is 100% free (//Clark)//
 * It is improving over time
 * The science journal Nature conducted a survey that found four errors in Wikipedia for every three in the Encyclopedia Britannica – not bad for a community-authored resource //("Is Wikipedia a Reliable Resource").//

//What the Experts Say//
“I think Wikipedia has several places in the academic world. It’s a good place to keep in touch with ever-changing pop culture that you really can’t get references to other places. In another place, Wikipedia is a good way to point to deeper, more reliable primary resources.” //--Paul Jones, Professor (qtd. in "Is Wikipedia a Reliable Resource")//

“Wikipedia is a community, not just of those that put time and effort into editing it, but also the users. Therefore the best place to meet your perspective users, introduce them to your content and advise them on better information gathering practices is at Wikipedia. Information professionals and information providers should be playing a considerable part in improving the content on Wikipedia; you can cite their own content and generate leads and users from there.” //--Mark Chillingworth (qtd. in "Discuss Wikipedia")//

__Cons of Wikipedia__

 * Less popular topics will most always contain less trustworthy information, because fewer people are editing them
 * Easier resources, like wikipedia, do not equal academic resources
 * Because the content is free, there is a chance that less research is involved in creating the articles
 * Anyone (literally, anyone) with access to the Internet can edit the articles
 * Entries tend to be fragmented and unsubstantiated
 * Information is difficult to properly cite in a paper, because the content is constantly edited, updated, etc. (//Clark//).
 * People's names/pictures are used withouth their permission
 * A picture of a high school English teacher, Kelly Cave, during her district's annual Donkey Basketball game, was found on Wikipedia. She was never contacted about the use of this picture.
 * Mr. Seigenthaler was shocked to read an article about himself on Wikipedia, that claimed he had something to do with the Kennedy assassination. (full article: [|Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar)]

//What the Experts Say//
“Any user can change any entry [in Wikipedia], and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true… All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true.” //–Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, Aug. 1, 2006 (qtd. in "Is Wikipedia a Reliable Resource")//

“Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn’t come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves." //--Andrew Orlowski (qtd. in "Wikipedia Quotes")//

Back to Main