Why Wikipedia Articles May Contain Inaccuracies

What Is Wikipedia Inaccurate
It is an age of the online encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia in today's world,
has already changed the way people access information to some extent. The online encyclopedia is
not only just the digital edition of traditional encyclopedia but also every user of it can contribute
materials (Murgia). This collaborative modification feature of Wikipedia has already been widely
accepted by many people. Every month, Wikipedia has more than 18 billion page views on average
and nearly 500 million unique visitors. (Anderson, Hitlin and Atkinson). Roughly 75,000 volunteers
edit and write articles on Wikipedia every month (Cohen). However, the prosperity of the online
encyclopedia has been accompanied with a decline of traditional ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Many people claim that information on online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia may be inaccurate
because the contributors are anonymous (Seigenthaler). Many anonymous writers may lack the
required academic background or related experience to write credible articles. Articles that are
written by non–academic writers may contain factual errors or unverified information. Moreover,
articles that are edited by unprofessional editors may not present the intended ideas clearly or the
articles may not to be structured properly. Furthermore, the free editing also reduces the information
accuracy. Because any user can edit content, some articles may not hold a neutral point of view.
Articles may contain the author's personal political beliefs, religious beliefs and bias. Also, because
every user can edit content, hackers and amoral users may use this opportunity to create false
information to deceive people. Compared with the online encyclopedia, the accuracy of traditional
printed encyclopedia seems to be much higher. For example, the articles in the encyclopedia
Britannica "were written by a staff of about 100 full–time editors and more than 4,000 expert
contributors" (Simonson). Not everyone has the chance to write on the traditional printed
encyclopedia; hence, the information on it is much more
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Is Wikipedia Reliable? Essay
Badke (2008) begins his article reminding us that Wikipedia although controversial is still the online
encyclopedia of choice by 36% of the United States population according to Pew Internet &
American Life Project's findings. (As quoted by Badke, para. 1)
Even if the public likes it, though, for the most part academic circles do not. Many professors will
not allow their students to use Wikipedia. These professors think Wikipedia is trivial, untrustworthy,
insulting, and too often completely incorrect. (2008, para. 4) Could this be because the university
world is jealous? It is true that true academics are the experts and if a layperson wants the facts, they
are the best resource. However, because of the zealous use of electronic ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It was not until I took a course at UNT that I realized that Wikipedia is a product of whoever wishes
to write. Any time, I have consulted Wikipedia, I have found the information on par with other
sources. There is always a reference list at the end of the articles, with resources to use for further
research. My vote is for letting students use it as one resource, but not their only resource.
In her article, Murley (2010) presents different reasons to use Wikipedia to teach students how to
evaluate and edit articles. She believes that she has found Wikipedia to be a valuable source to find a
link or reference to answer questions.
Wikipedia has existed since January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia is an online
encyclopedia written and edited by volunteers. Murley states that as of March 2008, Wikipedia
contained more than nine million articles, of which two million were in English. More than 75,000
contributors write in more than 250 languages. (2010, p. 594) However, any one can edit an existing
article by clicking on the edit tab found at the top of an article. Only anonymous registered users add
new articles. These articles must meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All references must be
verifiable and the tone must be neutral. If the article does not meet all of the criteria, Wikipedia's

Assess The Validity Of Wikipedia
The number one major criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a creditable source of information.
Wikipedia allows for laypersons, in addition to their staff editors, to contribute to the information
within the websites database. While the contributors may very well be reliable their identity is often
unknown; leaving the researcher unable to verify their contribution and sort out any personal bias
from the writer. Wikipedia's own website states that its not creditable because "anyone can edit the
information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain
unnoticed." (Wikipedia: DGG, 2007)
Objectivity is defined as: "1. a state or situation in which something is based only on facts and
evidence, 2. the ability to make decisions based on facts rather than on your own personal feelings
or beliefs." ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There is some thought that it is impossible for biasness not to be introduced into research. From the
selection of the research topic to the choice in sources, an author's own personal points of view tend
to get in the way. While an author may interject personal bias into their work, it does not
automatically mean that the validity of their research is jeopardized. The author must prove through
the use of reliable sources that there is sufficient evidence that their point of view is supported by
fact. It is the absence of these supporting facts that draws Wikipedia into the realm of unreliability.
When comparing Wikipedia to Sociological research, in the terms of objectivity, one can see that
there are similarities and differences. A similarity is that both platforms require some sort of

SOPA: Censorship's Sweetheart Essay
"Imagine a world without free knowledge." That was the quote on Wikipedia's front page on
Wednesday, January 18th. . The information–hosting online encyclopedia shut down all of the
articles and information on the website, presenting only a black screen and a stark situation to the
world for a full twenty–four hours. Why would Wikipedia, an online giant, shut down their website?
The consequences are huge, a loss of much–solicited donations to the company and advertising
money. The answer is simple. What Wikipedia is trying to do is raise awareness about two bills: the
Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, or SOPA and PIPA (Wikipedia, "Stop Online Piracy
Act, Protect IP Act"). Soon after Wikipedia, other websites joined in the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A good example of this is the Vocaloid community. Vocaloid is a voice–synthesizer used to create
songs that sound like a realistic human voice, with a cute anime (Japanese cartoon) character
attached. (Vocaloid Wikia, "What is VOCALOID?") In the Vocaloid community, one person might
post a song that they created. Another person, with the permission of the composer, might create a
music video for it using 3D modeling data by someone else, and post it on the same site. (Vocaloid
Wikia, "MMD") When an amateur singer sees the song, they might sing it, use the instrumental
provided by the composer, the video by the artist, and their voice to create a unique collaboration.
However, if SOPA and PIPA were put into practice, this whole creative process would stop at the
music video because of the copyright laws (Wikipedia, "Stop Online Piracy Act", "Protect IP Act"),
and the community irreparably damaged. In this way, SOPA and PIPA would limit creativity online.
Moreover, many small, innovated sites created by single users or a small collaboration would be
taken down for such a simple thing such as not providing a link to their background image. In fact,
the official site for SOPA did not cite their background image, and if the law was put into place,
their website's link would be taken down from search engines. (Wikipedia, "Stop Online Piracy
Act")
Yet, background images are not the only problem. For many users of sites such

Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite Or Rely On Wikipedia
Buddha once said, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I
have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Thousands of
years later this is still relevant and gives an important to today's youth: don't believe everything you
hear. Today, many adolescents use websites like Google and Wikipedia to help them research for
any projects. They see it as a quick way to answer any question because all they have to do is type in
the question and write down what the screen tell them. Little do they know, they could be writing
down false evidence simply because they trusted the internet. Wikipedia is not appropriate for
academic research because it can be edited and posted by anyone and false information can stay on
the site for months before being corrected. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to the article, "Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia" written by
Mark E. Moran, an Irish student by the name of Shane Fitzgerald posted a fake quotation on a
Wikipedia article about a deceased French composer named Maurice Jarre. Later, Fitzgerald was
startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries,
confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use websites, and
Wikipedia, as a reliable source. This proves that, while the person behind the screen publishing this
article may know it is false, it can appear just as trustworthy as any other fact in the article. It also
says in the article "Warming Up to the Culture of Wikipedia" by Noam Cohen, "...many curators are
suspicious of a site where anyone can create and edit an article, and where the assertions of expertise
are greeted with skepticism or, at best, a shrug." This shows that it is not only some schools that may
fear inaccurate evidence, but that museums are also skeptical of websites like

Is Wikipedia Successful?
One of the reasons Wikipedia works so well is the fact that it is not only an online encyclopedia but
how it is referenced for information. The information found on the website has a lot of substance
and facts that are useful for anyone looking up articles. It is the largest and most popular online
encyclopedia with millions of volunteer contributors and is published in hundreds of languages.
Wikipedia is straightforward and simplistic in technology to make browsing easier for novices or
experienced users alike. A lot of volunteer contributors contribute to Wikipedia and the data is
constantly updated with current events. Another question would be, "Why do people write or
contribute their knowledge for Wikipedia without credit?" Since

The Importance Of Writing An Article For Wikipedia
Wikipedia is an online resource that is visited by millions of people daily. Just about every subject
on the planet is covered in this online encyclopedia. Sooner or later, you'll probably start thinking
about writing an article for Wikipedia. The fact is that there are a large number of writer's that truly
enjoy editing and writing for Wikipedia. Certainly, many writer's enjoy editing articles on the site.
Perhaps, you are a writer and would like to start writing a complete article for Wikipedia. Don't
delay. Get started immediately. Wikipedia could always use fresh writing talent to extend their reach
by featuring more articles.
Writing for Wikipedia]
Wikipedia expects the writer's on the site to follow a few of their basic rules. Here are

Argumentative Essay On Wikipedia
Since its creation in "2001," Wikipedia has grown to be the "largest and most popular general
reference work on the internet" (Wikipedia). According to Alexa, a company owned by Amazon
which collects and distributes statistics on website traffic, Wikipedia is currently the "[sixth]" most
popular website in the United States, and the "[fifth]" most popular website worldwide
(wikipedia.org Traffic Statistics). However, there are several groups of people who argue that
Wikipedia's collaborative emphasis also is its greatest flaw, as it makes the encyclopedia lack
credibility, and as a result, they believe that the site is unfit for use in an academic setting. While it is
true that the anonymity of Wikipedia's editors significantly reduces the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One of the main reasons why Wikipedia is such a useful tool for students is because the information
being presented on Wikipedia is constantly evolving. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, which are
meticulously written and peer–reviewed by subject experts, Wikipedia relies on a swarm of
volunteers to develop its articles, and as a result, Wikipedia articles usually are updated with the
most recent and relevant information. In fact, there are on average "10 edits per second" across the
Wikipedia platform (Wikipedia:Statistics). This is further emphasized in the article, "Wikipedia:
Friend, Not Foe," by Darren Crovitz and W. Scott Smoot, who are both teachers of English at
Kennesaw State University and middle school history at The Walker School in Atlanta,

Editing and the Crisis of Open Source Essay
Editing and the Crisis of Open Source
The Free Software movement that began in 1985 and the newer "open source" movement,
represented a serious threat to traditional methods of production and distribution. The idea of a non–
proprietary method of cultural exchange was and is a radical departure from traditional models that
have come to restrict creativity and free exchange. In the ensuing years, there was a gradual drift
away from ideas of non–proprietary toward ideas of access to software's code level. This mirrored
an evident diffusion of these "open" ideas into the cultural sphere. Open publishing, open editing,
open music, and open culture are now hip buzzwords that point toward a new cultural formation
based on a more free exchange ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wikipedia.org, an open source encyclopedia, describes this conflict of terms.
It was hoped that the usage of the newer term "open source" would eliminate such ambiguity, and
would also be easier to "market" to business users (who might mistakenly associate "free software"
with anti–commericalism). Since its introduction, however, the "open source" label has been
criticized for fostering an ambiguity of a different kind: that of confusing it for mere availability of
the source, rather than the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it.
One of the early defects of "free" software was the perceived inability to use it in for–profit
ventures. Whereas the Free Software movement thinks of the freedom of software's code to be
available to all as an ethical and social imperative, open source treats it as a practical issue. Both
GPL and open source licenses can be used in for–profit ventures. "Copylefted" material must remain
"free" for people to modify, but can be priced for people to buy.
With the advent of the term open source, it now appears that everything is open source, or is at least
sold that way. When not applied to programming, "open content" is used to describe a wide range of
activities that have nothing to do with computer software. There is still the problem of

Summary Of The Rise And Decline Of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a popular social media site that is used by people all over the world. The two articles,
"The Decline of Wikipedia" by Tom Simonite and "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration
System: How Wikipedia's reaction to popularity is causing its decline" by Aaron Halfacker, R. Stuart
Geiger, Jonathan Morgan, and John Riedl, both argues about the decline of popularity in Wikipedia
over the years of its creation. Both of these two articles include a recognition of the claims being
made by the opposing party, facts and statistics to support their claims, and their own specific type
of language to connect to their audience. Although both readings are very convincing, the article
"The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan, and John Riedl, the authors' language use and their connectivity to
the audience felt more natural and appropriate. Halfacker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl's article was
similar to a written research paper and research papers are papers written to get a message across to
the public. They had headings that of a research paper such as the introduction, the hypothesis,
methods used, discussion, results, and conclusion. Not only that, they used complex professional
language which indicated that they knew what they were talking about and that they know the worth
of the paper they are writing. "Wikipedia has changed from "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
to "the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the
impersonal wall of semi–automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time
and energy can edit" (Halfacker, para. 91). This sentence was one of the few sentences that seemed
the least formal, yet the tone of this sentence seems to be formal and professional compared to the
Simonite's article. In "The Decline of Wikipedia", Simonite used a formal, yet informal, language
that seemed to connect more to the audience. The article was an easy read which is important when
trying to get information across to

The Use Of The Media In Media Democracy And The Internet
Throughout the years, the Media has contributed to the dissemination of information that sways
public opinion. Media Democracy is understood as a group of reforms that makes the information
more accessible to the society. These reforms include providing a better service of public service
broadcasting and encouraging people to participate in different types of Media by sharing their
opinions (Torbert). Its main goal is to promote and establish democratic values by providing
transparent information to the communities and avoiding corruption (Torbert). Therefore, Media
Democracy uses the different platforms that compose the Media to achieve its goal. One of these
different platforms is the Internet. This platform provides a huge amount of information to the
people through learning websites such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia created by
Jimmy Wales. It uses a Wiki software, which allows anyone to create, edit, share and copy articles.
Wikipedia is run by thousands and thousands of contributors from all around the world who write
articles in many languages and post them live on the Internet. Thus, the use of the Internet in Media
Democracy allows the society to have a broad and quick access to the information through learning
websites. However, the use of Wikipedia in Media Democracy reduces the development of critical
thinking skills and encourage the autodidactism making the classrooms obsolete. The principal role
of Wikipedia in the community is to

A Brief History Of Wikipedia Analysis
In the article "A Brief History of Wikipedia" the author Dan Fletcher explains how Wikipedia was
founded and the complications they fixed. In the first paragraph, he was explaining how Wikipedia
started with its first article on a Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen. That the article reached 3 million
entries from other people, and how impressive it was. Then he talks about how Wikipedia.com went
live on Jan. 15, 2001 and how fast it made its self–popular on the Ethernet. During the proses of
popularity since Wikipedia had an issue with the Church of Scientology messing with articles so
they blocked their IP from the website, and people volunteered to monetize and fix articles that were
messed with bad intentions. Later in the article, Wikipedia

False Information On Wikipedia Essay
Wikipedia the site where users are able to change the work made by authors is not a credible
source.Wikipedia does not have a way to make sure the information users seek is fact or fiction due
to the fact that it does not have any security measures to prevent users from making unauthorized
changes to information, which makes it unreliable for research.Wikipedia should not belong in the
college classroom for doing research and should be banned from the classroom for having false
information.The site wikipedia is not an adequate source for students due to the liability of
misleading information. Wikipedia was put on to the internet January 15, 2001 and was designed for
users to make articles without editing and monitoring. After the creation ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Without a monitoring system any user can change true information to false information. For
example if a user went online and went to a wikipedia article that user could be able to change
anything that they would want to. Then when another user visits the article there could then be false
information on wikipedia. Without a system users can change and write whatever they want to in
their article and others with no limits and causes problems when trying to sort through correct and
incorrect information found in the websites. There is still a valuable use that users are able to get out
of wikipedia users just need to figure out when to use wikipedia and when to not use wikipedia.
When not using for informational research the sit wikipedia can be a great source to use. The main
value that wikipedia can offer is the opinions of others which can be good to look out when wanting
a second word to help you figure bout and decide decisions. Options can be a great tool for when
researching a thing to buy or just for an out site voice to help a user decide and make a

How Is Wikipedia Reliable
Wikipedia as a Credible Source Almost anyone who is old enough to navigate a computer and have
a sense of curiosity knows what Wikipedia is – a free, online encyclopedia with hundreds of
thousands of articles which anyone can edit freely. Because this site allows almost anyone to edit
almost any page, however, there is a debate surrounding it on the topic of reliability. Should
Wikipedia count as a credible source, or should it be considered unreliable? First off, Wikipedia is
considered unreliable by so many people and organizations because "anyone is allowed to be a
contributer to the website." ("Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource?" 2015) On top of
that, Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has said on multiple occasions in ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However, there are others. For one, information on almost any topic can be found; and if it isn't, it
can easily be added by anyone with the necessary information. One complaint about Wikipedia is
that people won't write from a "neutral point of view" as the guidelines require. This is true.
However, on any page with many people editing, this means readers get to see everyone's
perspective. When you think about it that way, it sounds a lot more reliable than the evening news...
If a vandal comes and decides to delete a huge amount of text from a page and replace it with
"kittens are rotten" over and over again, what happens? Well, the developers of the site thought of
that. All changes are saved in their gigantic online database; if there is a vandal that deletes hundreds
of hours of work, someone can simply press the "revert" button and, obviously, revert the page back
to an older form. As previously mentioned, Wikipedia does have guidelines. In addition to requiring
a neutral point of view, these rules state that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own research.
According to the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original
research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or
experiences of its editors." ("Wikipedia:Verifiability" 2018) Soon after that, the guidelines

Reliability Of Wikipedia Essay
Wikipedia, throughout formal education, is often not seen as a credible source through the eyes of
many professors and scholars. The idea behind Wikipedia is that the members of the general public
can add their own personal knowledge, anonymously or not. The freedom of allowing this can be
both beneficial and detrimental to how citizens consume accurate information within a society. The
information that citizens of a democracy consume correlates directly with civic engagement and
participation. Through the comparative analysis of the Wikipedia article against other, current
academic literature, the article exhibits errors that include: Incomplete information,
oversimplification of significant events, and bias framing of indigenous peoples. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Credibility of Wikipedia Wikipedia is widely known amongst students and scholars as a
collaborative online encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, visitors are allowed to make edits, remove, or add
information to already existing Wikipedia pages. In a recent case study, according to Thomas
Chesney, that only about 13% of Wikipedia pages contain any mistakes; Consequently, this notion
goes to show that, while Wikipedia is often times deemed unreliable, it is fairly accurate and
credible. According to "Ways of Worldmaking in Wikipedia: Reality, Legitimacy and Collaborative
Knowledge Making.", by Fullerton et al, every Wikipedia page has a "default page", which is
dedicated to "authors discussing possible issues and solutions related to the article" (pg. 184).
Fullerton then continues to mention that, while this is a default mechanism, most editors fail to use
this. If more authors utilized this mechanism then there

Informative Essay On Wikipedia
Wikipedia offers limited information about my new hometown, Virginia Beach, seems accurately
informative. Because the article originates from Wikipedia my expectations were lowered because
of its low credibility among scholars, professors, and students alike. However, I want to point out, a
professor from another class relies on Wikipedia articles for certain topic. Consequently, I refer to
Wikipedia whenever I desire to gain a general overview about a difficult topic or concept before
conducting a thorough research.
Although I do not rely on Wikipedia as a source for gathering information for writing academic
papers, the site continues being resourceful for entertainment and selective topics. For instance,
Wikipedia remains a staple source

Essay about Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source
Is Wikipedia A Reliable Source
In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia's Dwight Reed, and Rachel R.
Wright, and con Wikipedia's Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate
between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia
as a reliable source.
Debating Wikipedia
Almost everyone knows about Wikipedia. Heck, every time you use a search engine like Google,
Wikipedia shows up as a source for information. Nicole Irving on the con side of the debate started
out by saying "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so what makes the information shared by anyone
true? If anyone can edit it then people can also edit it to be wrong. Dwight Reed ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The medium of the internet allows Wikipedia to be a valid source. Thousands/millions of editors
(reviewers) make sure it stays valid and credible. If the date was not "legally sound" why link to it?
This is the same process peer reviewed sources use. They review the material for its validity. You
may say, "Well, anyone can edit an article and put invalid information." The other side of that is
anyone and everyone can CORRECT an article, also, I work with a lot of small businesses and I
have shared with them that a "thief is going to steal." You all understand this phrase, if your
intentions are too bad you are going to do bad things, if an editor/reviewer is "pro–life" but he has a
review a "pro–abortion" article there could be some theft (bias) in the review. The police of potential
reviewers/editors of Wikipedia articles will see this theft and in fuse justice (correct the article).
Could a poorly edited article go unnoticed? Of course, have peered reviewed articles been deemed
"bad", of course. Ivy Leigh responded to Dwight Reed by saying "it does not matter whether Google
is a valid and credible search engine because it is just that a search engine. It only gives us a way to
access the information we are looking for. You stated, "If an editor/review is "pro–life" but he has a
review a "pro–abortion" article there could be some theft (bias) in the review. The police of potential
reviewers/editors of Wikipedia articles will see this theft and

Wikipedia Content Analysis
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that has the freedom of a user interface to edit almost all of
its contents. Currently, Wikipedia is considered to be one of the most popular website along with a
credit of being the most popular general reference work website (Ref.3&5 of web). It was launched
on January 15, 2001 by Jimmi Wales and Larry Sanger (Wiki ref). Though it was only composed of
articles written in English in its initial days, now it has included almost 292 languages which
happens to have similar versions which differs in article contents and editing practices.For example
Wikipedia has currently more than 5260000 English, 111000 Hindi, 1801000 French, 1306000
Italian, and a lot many (approximately 40 million in 250 languages) ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This method significantly out performs more complex methods for the article quality assessment. In
brief, the word count discrimination rule says article with more or less than 2000 words are
classified as featured or non–featured respectively. This method yielded an accuracy of 0.96 for an
unbalanced corpus. However, the value of the accuracy limit was varied for different subject
articles. They were found to be less for biological sciences and more for history. A study by Stvilia
measures information quality dynamics at both macro and micro levels (ref). They have postulated
seven IQ matrices that can easily be tested on a representative Wikipedia content. They further
added statistical characterization, content construction, process metadata and social context of
Wikipedia articles. The parameters include authorocity/reputation, completeness, complexities,
informativeness, consistencies, currency and

Essay on Wikipedia as a Reliable Source
Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a
serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our
argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes
of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be
utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the
parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of
Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).
Its name comes from the derivatives of two words. Wiki, from "the Hawaiian word Wikiwiki
meaning ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Proponents of Wikipedia might suggest that amateurs often make important contributions to fields
outside of their profession. Astronomers, Bird watchers and, Historians are often outshined by
discoveries made by Amateurs. However once the discovery is made it is the professionals who then
validate and confirm that information something that doesn't happen on Wikipedia. The might also
reference the unofficial policy of citing original sources as a way of validating the information.
"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research"(Logan, D.W. p1)
Impartiality should be an area where Wikipedia really flourishes. With so many voices contributing
to the ultimate output individual biases and cultural perspectives would be rounded over and
neutralized. One of the five pillars Wikipedians (what contributors call themselves) are expected to
follow is not sharing unpublished results or promoting their personal theories. This sounds very
noble but these are amateurs, people who by definition are passionate about a topic. If you are so
passionate about a given subject that you donate you time and knowledge how can you be impartial
even if you try. "All articles in Wikipedia should be impartial in tone and content" (Logan, D.W. p2)
The elephant in the room that I haven't addressed is vandalism. In this instance vandalism refers to
the act of knowingly submitting false

Essay about The Debate Concerning Wikipedia: Is...
Wikipedia has been the subject of considerable debate for some time now. Some think the site is not
quotable, while others argue that it is. Many teachers do not accept Wikipedia pages as a source of
information, because anybody can add information to such pages. However, this policy of
everybody being able to add has changed, and the present–day Wikipedia team works hard to
prevent inaccuracies on their website. Wikipedia pages nowadays indicate the sources of
information. Moreover, Wikipedia pages are checked on inaccuracies. Furthermore, Wikipedia is
more up–to–date than any encyclopaedia in book form. Additionally, Wikipedia covers more topics
than a regular encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is therefore a useful source of information.
First ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nowadays, a page is checked several times a day. For example, the article on London was last
checked on the ninth of March at 14.12, while right now it is the ninth of March 18.15 ("London"
par 13). Additionally, a Wikipedia page can be put under Protection Mode, preventing somebody to
add inaccurate information ("Wikipedia: Protection" par 1). There are four different kinds of
protection, each one to a different degree: full protection, semi–protection, creation protection, and
move protection ("Wikipedia: Protection" par 1). Moreover, according to the BBC, a survey of the
British journal Nature showed that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica
("Wikipedia survives" par 1). In the survey, scientific entries on Wikipedia as well as the
Encyclopaedia Britannica were anonymously checked on errors by peer reviewers. In each
encyclopaedia the reviewers found four errors, so Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica are
evenly accurate ("Wikipedia survives" par 10).
Third of all, Wikipedia can be updated more often than any encyclopaedia in book form. The main
weakness of Wikipedia, the fact that anybody can add information to a page, can be turned into its
strength. Every day, newspapers, television and other media report new information in the world.
While a regular encyclopaedia in book form has to be printed all over again to add news, Wikipedia
can simply be updated by one click. This way, also recent discoveries are

Does Wikipedia Contribute To An Inevitable Source?
When it comes to the topic of Wikipedia, most of us will readily agree that you can get some
valuable information from the website. Where this agreement usually end, however, is on the
question of credibility. Whereas some are convinced that the website is a waste of time, other
maintains that it can serve some purpose. Wikipedia has certain guidelines that must be met before a
person can submit an article; it must have been covered in an academic journal or in the mainstream
media. This is a way to ensure that the information is accurate. There is also a person who monitors
the website to check information that is submitted. So before a person goes and dismisses the
thought of using Wikipedia they should at least take a chance and see what ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
I recently read an article written by Neil L Waters called "Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in My
Class". The comment that Neil Waters made about how Wikipedia may lead to a citable source, is
reason enough to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a website that can help with writing a paper and
not hinder it. For example, when you are looking for information on Wikipedia it bluntly tells the
reader that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia which will allow anyone to edit or submit an
article. Wikipedia is the largest and most known websites to obtain a reference from. Due to the fact
that anyone can add what they assume is important makes the website credibility questionable. This
is why most professors do not allow it as a reference when writing a paper. Neil wrote an article
about why students were not allowed to use Wikipedia in his class. He stated his students are
responsible for the accuracy of information they provide, and they cannot point to Wikipedia or any
similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors. He even went on
the further explain that Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a
suitable

The Impact Of Internet On The Internet
1. Introduction
Internet connectivity is a major problem in developing countries. Broadband penetration is severely
limited, and access to useful information is crippled as a result. Where there do exist means to go
online, such as ADSL connections or mobile internet, the connection generally suffers from unstable
throughput and frequent outages. As a result, instant access to useful information is hampered. In an
increasingly knowledge dependent world, to be disconnected from that knowledge poses a serious
drawback. Students rely on the internet for academics, sportspeople for improvements to their game
and medical professionals are increasingly turning to online portals for reference, and thus the
knowledgebases on the internet contribute to making life better. A significant contributor to this
gradual integration of the internet as a reference guide into everyday life has been Wikipedia.
About Wikipedia:
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia , is a free to use, freely modifiable Online Encyclopedia which is
run by the not–for–profit Wikimedia Foundation. It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
in 2001. It is the most popular and most extensive reference guide on the Internet. Any Wikipedia
user has the power to create new Wikipedia articles or modify existing ones to the best of his
knowledge. Though the authenticity of these articles has often been a topic of controversy, each
page is visited thousands, if not millions of times every day, and inaccuracies in the

Wikipedia Vs Harvapedia Essay
When one searches to find reliable information on the Internet, they must keep in mind; there are
very few sources published on the web that can be trusted without looking into the background of
that source itself. One of the most famous examples of this idea is the digital encyclopedia
Wikipedia. Every student has been warned to be careful of what they read on this website and take
as true because of the fact that everyone is able to make edits on the articles. Comparatively, a newer
digital encyclopedia called Conservapedia claims to be the trustworthy version of Wikipedia. Even
though there are specific deference's between the encyclopedias, they still share many of the same
qualities. Looking at the web articles superficially, the encyclopedias are almost identical. From the
format of the page, layout of the page, to even the logo of the website are extremely similar. Both
articles start with a general introduction of the topic, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both articles gave the same information about polar bears are currently decreasing in size of their
population and seem to be affected by pollution, global warming, hunting, and change in
environment. They also propose there has been an on going debate as to whether or not polar bears
should be considered an endangered animal. However, the reasons as to why there is a debate are
different for the articles. Wikipedia, also known as the "free" encyclopedia, did provide more
information about the polar bear and also provided an extensive list of references. Although that
may seem to provide enough evidence to prove the article is trustworthy, what is taken for granted is
the amount of editors of the article. According to the information of the article, there are at least over
two thousand distinct authors. It is concerning when considering the article a source because of the
amount of authors of the article.
Looking more closely to the sources of the article are also

Cultural Bias In Wikipedia Essay
The article, "Cultural Bias in Wikipedia Content on Famous Persons," investigates if there is any
cultural bias in Wikipedia biographies. The writers started by discussing what Wikipedia is and
some of the issues with it. Some of these issues include: lack of accuracy, unknown motives,
uncertain expertise, volatility, unconfirmed or lacking sources, and selective coverage biased by the
specific interest of contributors. The authors decided to test the last concern; they formed a
hypothesis and tested Wikipedia in two different languages to see if there was any cultural bias. The
writers chose English and Polish. Primary English speaking countries have a different culture than
the Polish speaking country (Callahan, Herring 1899 – 1900). The writers chose to use the United
States and Poland as the test cultures. They chose the United States since it was the largest English
speaking country and the country in which Wikipedia originated. They formed two research
questions and two hypotheses. The questions were about the differences between English and Polish
versions of articles about famous people and if they favor local ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These thirty people were divided into five different categories. There was a total of 60 people. Three
from each country in each category. The categories were as follows: sports, politics, music, moves,
and academe/religion. The authors tested in structural and thematic content. The structural category
included elements such as entry length, presence and frequency of outlines, lists, references, et
cetera. The thematic category included elements such as favorableness of coverage, education,
nationality, political ideology and controversy. All of these elements were looked at in each of the
following categories: American – English, Pole – English, American – Polish, and Pole – Polish and
then compared (Callahan, Herring 1903 –

The Influence Of Wikipedia
People all over the world often go to Wikipedia as a quick and easy reference to their specific topic.
Wikipedia has become one of the biggest online encyclopedias; it exists in diverse languages and
contains a surplus collection of articles. It gives an overview of the specific subject, linking sources
from primary and secondary reliable sources. According to "We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital
Technologies," written by Cathy N. Davidson, "Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a
knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all over the world who edit and correct grammar,
style, interpretations, and facts..." (1). With that in mind, this also means that even people ranging in
their elementary years can contribute to the website. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The sources should be a reference for all of the material used in the article's sections. Determining a
good article, the article should have plenty of footnotes at the bottom or a little side number or letter
indicating where the links are located after a designated word. In this case, this page does have one
missing title that the editor did not provide for us. In particular,
"https://web.archive.org/20150622033825/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100–greatest–
singers–of–all–time–19691231/christina–aguilera–20101202. Archived from the original on June
22, 2015. Retrieved July 18, 2015. Missing or empty |title= (help)" Without the title given in the
link, it might discourage the credibility of the original author. If the article has more than enough of
missing links or as stated above, a title, the page is no longer considered has a good

Questions On Web Filter Ui
4 RE S ULTS
We implemented the methods proposed in sec– tion 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and made it available for a free
use on our Regen Server. It can be accessed using the link: http://regen.informatics.iupui.
edu:8080/WebForBVI/index.jsp. The user in– terface looks as shown in Figure 9.
Web Filtering: We developed a generalized
Figure 9. User Interface
tool where you can enter any kind of web site's
URL and click on filter button as shown in
Figure 10, then you will get a link for Original Web Page and Filtered Web Page as shown in Figure
11. Comparison of output generated by the system is as shown is Figure 12 (Original Page) and
Figure 13 (Filtered Page).
Web Summarization: This tool also works for
Figure 10. Web Filter UI
Figure 11. Web Filter UI after clicking Filter
Button
Figure 12. Original Page
generalized web sites where you have to enter URL of the site, which first extracts the content then
generates summary as well as keywords as shown in figure 14 and 15.
BVI Reader: The results of this extension can be viewed by downloading a free chrome extension
on your browser and enabling it to
Figure 13. Filtered Page
Figure 14. Web Summarization UI
Figure 15. Summarized Page
play on any generalized web sites as shown in figure 16.

BVI CSR: More information about imple– mentation details can be found at our website whose user
interface looks as shown in figure

Common Wikipedia Mistakes In Research
What is one of the most common Wikipedia mistakes. Well, it is something that might surprise most
people. For example, you are a well–known politician and decide to write a brief article or
biography on your rise to fame. Perhaps, you are a local athlete filled with pride about your
accomplishments. Of course, you could have a new start up online and are trying to promote the
business through writing an article for Wikipedia. Is this a good idea? The fact is that there is just no
way that this could be a good idea. Let's take a closer look at the reasons to avoid self promotion or
writing about yourself on Wikipedia.
Know Important Wikipedia Policies
It is amazing, the number of writers that decide a little self promotion on Wikipedia is a wonderful
idea. They don't even wrestle with the pro's and con's associated with writing about themselves.
Here is something to note. Wikipedia requests that all articles are neutral. Most self promotion
articles are not neutral. It is extremely difficult to remain neutral, when writing about yourself. If
you insist on writing about yourself, include completely neutral and reliable sources for your
information.
Critics ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Perhaps, you've lived a normal and quiet life, but a critic digs up information about a scandalous
episode that happened years earlier. That informat6ion could negatively affect the impression that
people have about you. Remember, Wikipedia is a source of information visited by millions around
the world. The odds are that people will download the information and share it with other sources
online or use that information for references about

The Pros And Cons Of Wikipedia
I. Introduction
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that provides collaborative modification of its content and
structure directly from the web browser who is known as Wikipedians. Everyone can create an essay
or article for publication after registration on the site. However, It is no need to register before
editing essays or articles. Thousands of changes can be made every day due to constantly changing
edited by many people. A new set of challenges have been raised for educators and students when
they involved in writing and critical thinking, due to the movement in culture from analog to digital
culture. The improvement in Internet changed the channels of how students to use research source
content for academic writing. With wealth ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In fact, faculty behavior and perceptions could be affected by individual's personal factors, including
individual's certain characteristics associated with his or her features, professional status and past
experiences. It is especially focus on the age, gender, social networking, contact with the business
sector, teaching experience and academic ranking. Among the factor mentioned above, contact with
the business sector and social networking are the most important factors in this study. Thus, the third
hypothesis that I could set is perceived behavioral control has direct influence on the intention to use
Wikipedia as resource content for academic written

Duality Of Wikipedia Essay
The site I chose to write about is Wikipedia.com. I chose Wikipedia.com because many people use
the site as a guide for new research avenues, which is at the heart of the internet's origins. The
duality of Wikipedia is that while it may aid users in their research projects the content on the site
can be added and edited by almost anyone that views the page. This editing ability can lead to
erroneous information being passed on to the researcher as if it were fact. While Wikipedia is a great
resource for knowledge and ideas, this information must be taken with a grain of salt.
A) The purpose of Wikipedia is to act as a global, freely accessible internet based encyclopedia.
Wikipedia attempts to bring large amounts of information from all over the world and many
different subjects to once central, searchable place. While not all information ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
There is no age requirement nor is there any bias towards any one group based on region or
language. The site itself has a translate feature that allows it to be read in a vast amount of countries
all over the world. It is intended to be used by everyone that is searching for knowledge about
specific topics.
C) I completely believe that Wikipedia reaches its intended audience. When searching for a specific
topic using a search engine, often there will be a link about the topic in question connected to a
"wiki" page. Even though the editability of a wiki page usually disqualifies it from academic pages,
Wikipedia tends to be a major starting point for most researchers.
D) I quite often use Wikipedia for quick research topics. If I ever have a question about something I
may have seen on TV or in a movie, Wikipedia is the first place I start my search. When searching
for information about school projects or a hobby, Wikipedia helps to point me in the right direction.
Even though the content can be questionable, usually there are references that can help lead me to a
creditable information

Pros And Cons Of Wikipedia
The first observation noted that there's an issue with the Wikipedia site is their home web page. The
home page of the online encyclopedia has a welcome page that boasts, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (Wikipedia, 2015). This method is in opposition of what I
would deem highly credible. Anyone could be an Eight–year–old or a person that is mentally ill. In
my opinion, the open editing system is the strength and the weakness of the website. There is the
chance that the social encyclopedia's contributors may not create university level articles worthy of
citing as a primary source for an academic paper. Another issue is that Wikipedia seems to depend
on the hopes that its user will apply the golden rule that is "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you." It seems Wikipedia depends on the kindness of its users and hopes that they will post
accurate ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mills Kelly, a historian at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., encouraged his students to
deceive thousands of people on the Web. Professor Kelly encourages his student to create a hoax
story about a pirate for the purpose of teaching the students about vetting the quality of their
sources. The students created a fake history blog, they created youtube videos, interviewed experts,
fabricated documents, and then the students posted statuses on facebook, twitter, and shoutwire. The
students went on the Wikipedia page and created a memorial page for the pirate. Unfortunately
many were duped by the hoax. The fabricated pirate story went as far as being featured on USA
Today's pop culture blog. At the end of the semester, the professor revealed the hoax. Some
applauded the Professor while many others were livid. Among the livid was Jimmy Wales, the Co–
founder of Wikipedia (Applebaum,

Essay on Wikipedia and Its Credibility
Wikipedia and its Credibility
Wikipedia and its Credibility
The Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that lets every individual with Internet connection
write and edits its articles. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched their creation in 2001 giving an
opportunity to all willing people to work together to develop a common resource of knowledge.
Many people have different believes and ideas about Wikipedia, therefore, some tend to think of it
as a credible and valid source of information, others strongly disagree. "Since all the books and
articles have been chosen for publication, each one has presumably undergone some form of
selection and review" (Spatt, 2011, "p."339–340). Unfortunately, this statement is simply not enough
to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Going straight to the source is the best way to check if the information in the article is reliable and
credible.
A New Tool to Check the Quality of Articles German professor Stock created a new tool that allows
checking the quality of articles posted on Wikipedia and stated,
Wiki–Watch serves as a research tool indicating lack of sources and evaluating the reliability of
every entry made, using WikiTrust's color code system to display reputation of a text according to
the reputation and number of revisions by users. Wiki–Watch analyzes every Wikipedia entry ever
created in a few seconds, checks the number of sources used in the article and the quality of editing
(para. 2). Wiki–Watch uses a color codes system to check the reputation of the article by figuring out
how many times people revised the article. White color means reliable information; therefore,
yellow color has an opposite meaning. This system also checks for the credibility of the article and
emphasizes individual words used in the article.
Many Editors to Correct the Errors Wikipedia counts 75,000 editors who check the articles and their
content to make sure that the information is valid and reliable. According to Schaffer (2009), the
journal Nature conducted a study in 2005 and proved that Wikipedia is just as valid as any other
encyclopedia, including Britannica, keeping in mind that errors and vandalism can occur to any of
them (para. 2).
Even though Wikipedia will never be

How Does Pepperl + Fuchs Use Social Knowledge Tools?
Social Knowledge Tools
Though Pepperl+Fuchs do have a Wikipedia page; they are not fully taking advantage of Wikipedia
and what it can provide. Their Wikipedia page has all the normality's that other Wikipedia pages
have such as their company history/background, the technologies that they provide, where they have
market presence, and even the different automation divisions that they provide. They are using
Wikipedia to optimize their search engine existence. Wikipedia is usually the second hit in Google
search, which makes it an important tool to use when working on SEO of a business's name/website.
Pepperl+Fuchs has a link that directs viewers back to their home webpage, which suggests that they
are using Wikipedia as a way of channeling ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Their LinkedIn page starts out with a nice about me section at the beginning that would give a
customer a lot of knowledge about who they are and what they do exactly. Along with this, they
have a link to take you to their site and information on their industry, size, headquarters, and when
they were founded. Just like on twitter, on LinkedIn they have recent updates that allow one to click
on links about recent news that takes one to their blog on their website. One example under their
recent updates section is, "Frequently Asked Questions on RFID." If one were to click on this it
would take them to Pepperl+Fuchs website where they could read an article post on their blog about
questions on RFID. This would be beneficial to a consumer of Pepperl+Fuchs that had questions
about RFID or trouble using them. It seems that both Twitter and LinkedIn are reaching out to stay
connected with customers and potential customers where they can share news and information about
their company. When it comes down to their strategy I feel that are just trying to get one onto their
website where they can increase their chance of getting

Research Paper On Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a free–access, free–content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non–
profit Wikimedia Foundation. Those who can access the site can edit most of its articles. Wikipedia
is ranked among the ten most popular websites,
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger a portmanteau of
wiki and encyclopedia. Initially only in English, Wikipedia quickly became multilingual as it
developed similar versions in other languages, which differ in content and in editing practices. The
English Wikipedia is now one of 291 Wikipedia editions and is the largest with articles . There is a
grand total, including all Wikipedias, of over 38 million articles in over 250 different languages. As
of February ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such
content among the reasons for this trend. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline
and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of
a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in
June 2011. In July 2012, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline. In
the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth–
most–used website, is facing an internal crisis. In 2013, MIT's Technology Review revealed that
since 2007, the site has lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online
encyclopedia's millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on

A Stand Against Wikipedia Essay
A Stand Against Wikipedia
As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become
increasingly concerned about the online, reader–produced encyclopedia. While plenty of professors
have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged
or tried to bar students from using it.
"As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation," said Don
Wyatt, chair of the department. "Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the
value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation," he
said.
The department made what Wyatt termed a consensus decision on the issue after discussing ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He stressed that the objection of the department to Wikipedia wasn't its online nature, but its
unedited nature, and he said students need to be taught to go for quality information, not just
convenience.
The frustrations of Middlebury faculty members are by no means unique. Last year, Alan Liu, a
professor of English at the University of California at Santa Barbara, adopted a policy that
Wikipedia "is not appropriate as the primary or sole reference for anything that is central to an
argument, complex, or controversial." Liu said that it was too early to tell what impact his policy is
having. In explaining his rationale – which he shared with an e–mail list – he wrote that he had "just
read a paper about the relation between structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism in which
every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any
need to read a primary work or even a critical work."
Wikipedia officials agree – in part – with Middlebury's history department. "That's a sensible
policy," Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e–mail interview. "Wikipedia is the ideal place
to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In
fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources.
Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a

Analysis Paper. Wikipedia
Launched on 15 January 2001, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses the web platform for
online users to access. Boasting with over 26 million pieces of writing in 285 languages, Wikipedia
has transformed to be a giant in the field of search engines optimization technology. The open
source concept that it rides have made it cheap to access and a better choice for many online users.
This is especially among the users who find it cumbersome to follow prolonged registration
processes to access information on the internet. Any search term queried on the Google™ home
page search engine will definitely give a hit from the Wikipedia site, and if not present, a prompt
will request the user to create a page for such a term. In this way, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In this particular article, issues have been raised for peer review. To begin with, the article appears to
lack information by a way of proper referencing from reliable sources. Secondly, it sets a bad
precedence to talk of personality biographies to the living. It is to my view that any article and
especially the ones found in the Wikipedia should not have a biased or libelous view on issues. To
correct this misgiving, I suggest that a proper research be conducted in regards to Jackie Chan from
renowned journalists, who may find it a pleasure to access and interview Jackie Chan himself. In
this regard, my role would fit in well as a peer reviewer rather an author or illustrator. This is
partially because I possess excellent skills on information searching, data analysis and attention to
details and because it is highly unlikely for me to secure a face–to–face interview session with
Jackie Chan. However, due to the amount of time needed in background research and analysis, I
would only attempt to add "Off Camera" section that will be open for peer review and talk on the
website. Wikipedia Sandbox is a platform in the Wikipedia site that offers an experimental practical
approach to editing articles in the Wikipedia. It is clearly structured with, my only proposition; to be
that the summary area should be highlighted in a different color. This can

Wikipedia is an Evolving, Online Encyclopedia Website
The online encyclopedia website, Wikipedia, provides general information varying from movies,
television shows, theories, concepts and much more information to users comprising of individuals
twenty years old or younger, known as "digital natives" (Prensky, 2001). Authorship, meaning to be
the originator or writer of an idea (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014) is valued by "literate man"
(McCluhan,1969) compared to that of a "digital native". Controversy is created concerning the use
of Wikipedia since "literate man" value authorship much more than a "digital native". In order for
Wikipedia to acquire legitimacy from "literate man" Wikipedia must explicitly give credit to the
authors of its articles and indicate their credentials within the text. Marshall McLuhan defines
"literate man" to value visual linear systems indicating literate man prefer concepts to be explained
in a less complex and diverse way (McLuhan, 1969). Since literate man breaks down complex
concepts into visual forms he is more involved in McLuhan's hot media. Hot media refers to a
medium that is individual based and relies on one sense (McLuhan, 1969). In this case, the hot
media would be a physical book or encyclopedia which is an individual medium since only one
person can use a book at a time and only use one sense, being the individual's eyes. Using a book is
a literate man value because any complex ideas that come from the book can be broken down into
visual parts through the sentence. Literate man prefer

Article Review : ' The Terror Of Tiny Town '
This semester I was able to learn many things by adopting and editing a Wikipedia page. Most
composition classes would never use Wikipedia, but in this class we were able to utilize it to learn.
This semester the class was told to pick an article, and it would be theirs to edit for the rest of the
semester. My article was over the musical cult–western film called The Terror of Tiny Town, which
was the only film to feature an all dwarf cast. By adopting this Wikipedia page, I was presented with
challenges that other students did not face, and they were presented with challenges that was unique
to their page. I did not have a problem keeping my edits on the page, but the article is not popular so
there has not been much reaction to the page. I had to learn how to do research over a topic that is
not popular, and any information on the topic was hard to find in reliable places. Furthermore, I
learned how to do basic coding on Wikipedia, something I had no idea how to do before. After my
experiences, I would suggest using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Editing Wikipedia can teach
students how to research information and be able to put it in a place for the whole world to see, edit,
and critique.
Prior to the edits that I made on the page, there was a lot of information that was lacking. The
Wikipedia page showed a list of the cast, the plot summary, the reception, and it has the full movie
available to watch, but the information given did not do the movie justice, and the page

Explanation Of Using Wikipedia
Many students assume that the online, free encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a valid, authoritative and
useful reference source for their scholarly work as a student at NVCC. Many teachers say that
Wikipedia is garbage and should never be used. Which is it?
In this assignment, we will be examining just how authoritative (and stable) Wikipedia (aka wiki) is.
First, you will examine a specific entry from Wikipedia and check for changes that have occurred
over a period of six months, and then you will compare the information from the Wikipedia entry
with the information from an established reference source such as the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB).
Since you may have never really looked carefully at a Wikipedia entry, I want you first to look at my
Explanation of Using Wikipedia before you start this paper assignment.
For your comparison of a Wikipedia entry with the same entry in EB, you should choose a research
term that is in some way relevant to the material that you have covered in your course, and that term
must be clear, focused and doable. For example, "World War II" or "The ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
That is partly what you are answering in this assignment, but I would also like to point out that a
"Wikipedia" article can often be an excellent starting point (not the end point) for research on a topic
or a quick source of general information. For example, I often check Wikipedia if I am looking for
the birth or death date dates of a historical figure. I would also point out that a Wikipedia entry is
especially valuable when it includes footnotes, citations of sources and suggested sources for further
information (often in the form of external links). Finally, Wikipedia can be extremely useful on
topics of relatively newer historical events. For example, in my HIS 242 (History of Russia II)
course, I ask that students check the entry for the Beslan School Hostage crisis. This is an
exceptional article––although its quality varies a bit from month to

Wikipedia Entry On Card Counting
Throughout history, human beings have more benefited from the Wikipedia than any other
encyclopedias because of the conveniently accessing and easily searching of Wikipedia. Since
Wikipedia is free for anyone to look for some quick and basic information, it is widely used by
students and academics for introductory concepts. When people try to familiarize or need
background information about a topic, they can search on Wikipedia to gain some particularly useful
materials even though it is not a reliable source for academic research. Indeed, I gained a basic sense
of card counting when I read the Wikipedia entry "Card counting". However, as I am going to start
more in–depth research about how to count card and how to calculate the True counts, it is not
rational to adopt Wikipedia because of the imprecise content, the risk of vandalism, and the
reliability of Wikipedia.
To begin with, the Wikipedia entry on "Card counting" provides a clear and comprehensive
overview of card valuation concepts and methods for those people who do not know a lot. First, it
explains the basic to use card counting system: "The most common variations of card counting in
blackjack are based on statistical evidence that high cards (especially aces and 10s) benefit the
player more than the dealer, while the low cards, (especially 4s, 5s, and 6s) help the dealer while
hurting the player" ("Card counting" sec. 1). Then it lists some ranking systems for card counting,
such as Hi–Lo, KO, and Zen Count,

Why Wikipedia Articles May Contain Inaccuracies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Why Wikipedia Articles May Contain Inaccuracies

Similar to Why Wikipedia Articles May Contain Inaccuracies (20)

More from Jessica Robles

More from Jessica Robles (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Why Wikipedia Articles May Contain Inaccuracies