Duane Robbins
Mr. Roberts
AP Literature
12/14/2011
Over the years there have been many debates over the issue on whether Wikipedia can be considered a creditable source for true research. Many think that wikis’ function to allow any individual to write information on any topic even if it is not accurate destroys the reliability of the online encyclopedia. However, individuals base their decisions on whether they believe that Wikipedia is a creditable source on popular gossip, ability to change information, and their assumption that Wikipedia is the only site that allows unreliable information. A high school class did a study and the truth is that Wikipedia does an outstanding job making sure any incorrect information is fixed within a minimal time period. Also there have been several other studies that prove, many other online encyclopedias have had more mistakes within their sites then Wikipedia has overall. Basically most individuals create these false assumptions about Wikipedia, because it is the world’s most popular online encyclopedia, so most don’t know about the problems other informational sites have.
In the article, Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica, there is a study conducted that compares Wikipedia to another online encyclopedia called Britannica. The results show that the Britannica had just as many mistakes as Wikipedia had on average. The article then states, “That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia“ (Terdiman Daniel). On first glance one might make the assumption that Britannica is the better encyclopedia because it has less mistakes, but one gets a different view when they read further into Terdiman’s report. Individuals have to realize that it is natural that Wikipedia will have a few more mistakes, because it has more articles then Britannica and is more heavily viewed. These results shows society that Wiki is not the only informational site out there that has inaccurate information. To expect that a resource, which has been open to an entire world of people, to not have any imperfections, is not possible. It is important to look at how the website chooses to handle these inaccurate facts. Also remember that it is the responsibility of the individual retrieving the data to compare his findings to another resource to assure its accuracy.
In 2011, the Carroll County High School AP English class conducted a study to determine how quickly Wikipedia finds and fixes inaccurate data. In this experiment each individual in the class changed a piece of information on Wikipedia and timed how long it took the website to locate a problem and fix it. The data showed that 54% of the class changes had been fixed within a 4-hour time frame and 89% of the classes’ changes had been fix within a 24-hour time frame. Within a 2-day time frame all the changes that the students had made, had been fixed. This data shows that any information that is changed to inaccurate facts are located and changed back to normal within a short time period. Also, the class had several students that put outrages facts, which didn’t even have anything to do with the topic or could be seen as offensive. These individuals were sent a message telling them that there changes had been undone and if they continued this behavior then their membership would be revoked and they would be denied access to change information. This part of the study shows that individuals that changed information to outrages facts in the intention to be humorous are sent a warning informing them that if they continue doing this, then that individual will be denied access to the ability of changing information. (AP Literature)
Wikipedia originated as an encyclopedia available to anyone with an Internet connection. Internet entrepreneurs Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger wanted to create a “community, as well as an encyclopedia” that could be used by everyone so people would have a place to share information, (SD Tribune). Wikipedia has also evolved a precaution to lock all popular search topics so that no individual can change the data located on those pages. This precaution helps eliminate many delinquents that create Wikipedia accounts as a way to change popular facts as a joke for their amusement. These locks prevent said delinquent from changing anything therefor their motive for being on wiki is taken away and thus also saves the less popular sites from being changed.
Wikipedia has made many advances since Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger started the idea. Many of which don’t deal with the way researchers get their information, but refer to the security so that Wiki can give individuals a more reliable site to receive information off of. The studies that I have mentioned above are evidence that Wikipedia has heard the complaints from its viewers and has made strides to fix the problem and deliver an overall better online encyclopedia.
Overall Wikipedia is as trustworthy as other reference source, and should be considered as credible as standard encyclopedias. Instead of arguing over the credibility of Wikipedia, students should avoid using this encyclopedia as a direct source and instead use it for more of a personal informational site. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself said in a 2005 interview with BusinessWeek that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be used as background information sources only. On the bottom of the pages, there are links available that can show you websites with more in depth information on the searched topic. Overall it is important to remember that no source is 100% accurate and it is the searchers duty to do enough research to get a strong answer.
Works Cited
AP Literature Class. “Excel Data Representations”. N.P. Web. 1 Nov. 2011 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ari4TF8SssJKdGFXeFBhbEh5YkdWU0NVdzViMnE1N3c&hl=en_US&pli=1
Helm, Burt. “A Vote of Confidence in Wikipedia.” Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Bloomberg L.P., 14 Dec. 2005. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_035216.htm
Keats, Jonathon. “Why Wikipedia Is as Important as the Pyramids.” Wired. Conde Nast, 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/st_essay_wikipediawonders/
Seelye, Katharine Q. “Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar.” New York Times. New York Times, 4 Dec. 2005. Web. Oct. 25. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html
Terdiman, Daniel. “Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica.” Cnet. CBS Interactive, 15 Dec. 2005. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
No comments:
Post a Comment