( a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process
, as the Wikipedians constantly go to update it.
There are some mistakes on their contents since it is open to every one and people could edit their articles. So the content is
Wikipedia manages controversial topics in a logical mannerWikipedia’s unbiased point of view policy makes it an excellent encyclopedia into gaining an understanding of the many controversial topics that might be discussed. Also, having credible people on wikipedia would grant the website’s readers a genuine view about people across the globe.
Sarah Kayyem<br />Reham El Didi<br />LujainRamiz<br />
Wikipedia prides itself on being a “neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts” and tries to maintain that through their five pillars.</li></li></ul><li>What makes wikipedia so special?<br /><ul><li>It is free and available to everyone with unlimited access.
Wikipedia has a bad reputation with educators; some see it as having low quality and unacceptable to be used in academic research.</li></li></ul><li>Should material be posted by random contributors? <br />No cost<br />Faster correction of errors and constant update. <br /> <br />More independence. <br />Reliability and accuracy. <br />Amateur Wikipedians from around the world constantly contribute, add and edit <br />
Wikipedians spend a good amount of their time, knowledge and time, receiving no pay, by volunteering to contribute to the growing Wikipedia database. The motivation behind these people has been greatly researched and narrowed down to the following four points.<br />Who are the wikipedians?<br />
How does Wikipedia mediate disputes on sensitive or controversial topics? <br />logical manner. <br />unbiased point of view policy<br />credible people<br />Wikipedia’s Controversy<br />
User Factors<br />Openness<br />Computer Skills<br />Motivation<br />Knowledge Factors<br />Type of Knowledge<br />Peer Review<br />Technology Factors<br />Easy Usability<br />Fast Access<br />Flexible Structure<br />Although Wikipedia might not be considered as a credible source HOWEVER it is built on many successful factors …<br />
There is no right answer<br />Some say its logic and have the unbiased point of view policy<br />Some claim its biased like “conservapedia.com” <br />conservapedia.com clearly shows some examples of Wikipedia’s liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on etc.<br /> 6) Is mediation likely to yield to unbiased results?<br />