Is_Wikipedia_a_Valid_and_Credible_Source_

Is Wikipedia a Valid and Credible source' To try to defend Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information is usually assumed a non starter. In academic circles, the antipathy towards the usefulness or usability of any information from Wikipedia is palpable. Critics usually point out that because of its open source model and the absence of the requirement for all contributors to possess verifiable academic credentials, entries in Wikipedia could not be reliable. Citations are verifiable However, while it is true that at its inception such postulations might have been justified, the evolution of the medium over the last several years have allowed measures to be put in place to increase the accuracy of its postings. Information can be questioned on the site by the users and if verified incorrect, the system auditors would post a waiver alert at the top of any such posting. However, because articles are not only cited, the citations are also verifiable; it is possible to find entries in Wikipedia that meet the standards of rigorous academic enquiry, and could be used as a source of research. Most Wikipedia articles include citations meaning that the accuracy and authenticity of articles can be validated by any independent user interested in using information from the site. As such, the requirement to validate source is just as needed in citations from any other source as it is in Wikipedia. The same thoroughness in vetting information is mandatory to ensure accuracy of information and data irrespective of how reputable the source might be. It is simply ‘due diligence’. If an article is verified and found authentic from a credible source, it is only proper to accept its usage in a research paper. Gray, D, M. (2011) insisted a host of studies have been conducted by universities worldwide that suggest overall, Wikipedia is an accurate source of information given the trade-off of peer review and open editing,' though most of these studies conclude that each discipline should review the accuracy for their own content. Finally, public policy faculty from well-respected universities (1) are participating in a pilot program that encourages students and faculty to contribute to and strengthen the accuracy and depth of public policy content on the Wikipedia web site during the 2010-2011 academic year (Chapman, 2011).(pg.64). The author went on to list the names of the “respected universities” as indicated in the index below. Concerted effort to eliminate bias Also, what is often not mentioned about Wikipedia is the extent to which the organization goes to eliminate biases in published articles. If an article shows some bias, other articles, with contrary opinions are posted beside it. According to Greenstein and Zhu (2012) The predominant outlook of the articles also is astonishing. Since its founding, Wikipedia aspired to present articles that lack biases. A “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) is one of the tenets that all Wikipedia articles aspire to achieve, along with “verifiability……….” If an article reflects NPOV, then conflicting opinions are presented next to one another, with all significant points of view represented. This aspiration appears quite plausible in some settings. NPOV should not be difficult to achieve when articles cover uncontroversial topics loaded with objective information that can be verified against many sources. That setting characterizes the vast majority of Wikipedia articles about established scientific topics (pg. 343). Therefore, it is possible to see several points of view on a subject at the same time. Authenticity proved by court citations Furthermore, Wikipedia articles are used in Court proceedings and admitted and authentic and reliable source of information that could be used for the formation of judicial opinions. And “though one court put Wikipedia in the category of "questionable sources," others continue to rely on Wikipedia in opinions. Wikipedia citations show up by the hundreds in cases, by the thousands in law review articles, and in countless numbers of legal briefs." Conclusion So from the viewpoint of accuracy and variability it can be seen as an evolving medium that has a global reach, its interactivity guaranteeing the infusion of new information and that serious efforts are being made, even from the academic community, to ensure validity and credibility and veracity of the information contained therein. Index (1) For a complete list of the studies, universities, summary of findings, and links to most of the studies, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wild/reliability_of_Wikipedia (last accessed May 10, 2010) (2) Georgetown University, George Mason University, Harvard University, Indiana University at Bloomington, Lehigh University, Syracuse University, University of California at Berkeley and Hoftstra University References Gray, D. M. (2011). A Categorical Distinction Content Analysis of Wikipedia and Its Impact on IMC Education International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 3(1), 64-73. Retrieved from University of Phoenix Library Greenstein, S., & Zhu, F. (2012). Is Wikipedia Biased' American Economic Review, 102(3), 343-348. Retrieved from University of Phoenix Library MILLER, J. C., & MURRAY, H. B. (2010). WIKIPEDIA IN COURT: WHEN AND HOW CITING WIKIPEDIA AND OTHER CONSENSUS WEBSITES IS APPROPRIATE. St. John's Law Review, 84(2), 633-656.