The following three blogs all discuss the credibility of Wikipedia. All agree that Wikipedia can be more credible than we give it credit for, However, I made some of my own conclusions as well.
http://damndanny.blogspot.com/2016/09/lets-talk-about-wikipedia.html#comment-form
http://mmjohnson341.blogspot.com/
http://kdcomm339blog.blogspot.com/
Wikipedia has this very by the people, for the people attitude. Anyone can go on Wikipedia and make edits or changes to a page. However, those changes are not published until they go through review. There are people that literally just sit and filter through Wikipedia edits to check the reliability. If something unreliable does get on a particular page, people can flag it. It makes people feel like that have a part of something, when in fact they really don't; kind of like our voting system. So in some cases, like looking up facts on Justin Bieber, or random definitions, yes, Wikipedia is a reliable source. For looking up information on Perelman's arguments on rhetoric, Wikipedia is probably not the place to go. But if you had no clue who Perelman was or what rhetoric is, then Wikipedia is a good place to go to get some basic information. Wikipedia is like the stepping stone to other sources.I do not think Wikipedia should be used as a reliable source for developing arguments in essays and debates. But using Wikipedia to understand the basics before getting into the more complex information is where Wikipedia is a credible source.
No comments:
Post a Comment