Wikipedia_Crediable_

Is Wikipedia a credible and valid source of information' Wikipedia, an international free web-based encyclopedia, offers a wide range of information that is posted, edited, and cited by everyday people. People, such as college students and professional experts, are monitoring and contributing their knowledge to ensure that Wikipedia remains a reputable source of accurate information. Wikipedia has become a very easy and popular source used to retrieve information; for it is almost guaranteed to find an article on any subject matter. In addition, Wikipedia comes with the ease of providing hyperlinks, citations, and discussion forums to support information published. It is protested that Wikipedia’s greatest strength, is that it provides speedy updates of information within minutes. Editor, Alexander Halavais, tested this theory when he submitted a very in-depth and lengthy entry. He reported that within three hours, 13 errors had been corrected (Reference Services Review, 2008). This online encyclopedia truly meets the expectation of its name “Wiki,” which in Hawaiian means “quickly” (Christian Science Monitor, 2006). With the advantages that Wikipedia has to offer, the question of whether or not it is a reliable source of information still remains; yet with a very obvious answer: Wikipedia allows users to supply information without the support of verifying each user’s expertise; therefore, it cannot be accredited as a credible and valid source of information. The fact that everyone has access to edit, alter, and even delete information posted to Wikipedia at any given time, only ensures that information must be constantly verified for its’ validly. This online encyclopedia cannot provide any proof that its online community is a community of people with upstanding credentials or experts with trustworthy knowledge of the topic at hand. Wikipedia states on its’ own website that information posted should not be considered as a creditable source. It advises searchers to look up information from primary reliable sources first, to recognize inaccurate, bias, incomplete, and vandalized information on Wikipedia (Wikipedia: Academic Use). With this being stated, Wikipedia only serves as blog, in which opinions are being shared and consumes a lot of time when verifying and comparing gather information to other resources. As a result, people are still forced to collect information through more traditional outlets, such as libraries. It is often argued that Wikipedia is a creditable source because it encourages its users to cite sources used to backup knowledge shared. However, to cite a source does not ensure that the information posted will not be a distorted version of the original source that the user is making reference to. Most of the information found on Wikipedia is a brief version of a particular article, book, or research study. Briefing of information is often found to be distorted with poor writing quality, which either minimize or maximize the source’s original intent. (Potash, 2010). Therefore, to cite Wikipedia based on the fact that it has citations in its articles is still not providing creditability. In Business Week magazine (2005), the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, quotes “No, I don’t think people should cite it…people shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias in the first place.” This was an answer given by Wales when he was asked about the validity of online encyclopedias such as Britannica, with the inclusion of Wikipedia. It is fair to state that not even the creator of Wikipedia is willing to trust information posted, without verifying it to a more accredited source. There have been studies used to test the accuracy of information on Wikipedia. In December 2005, Nature, an international weekly journal, reported that Wikipedia averaged about four errors per article (MSNBC). The test consisted of selecting a wide range of articles to be reviewed by experts, in which they intently searched for inaccurate and distorted information. Although during this study, Wikipedia was compared to be a slightly better source of information than using Britannica encyclopedia; it does not change the fact that many errors were found in articles posted on Wikipedia (Giles, 2005). Another finding was discovered in 2007, when the “Wiki Scanner” was created by Virgil Griffith. This program was designed to trace users posting or editing information found on Wikipedia. It was discovered that corporations were also contributing to the inaccuracy of information. Users from a Wal-Mart computer were found to be altering information regarding its company’s employee compensation plan. Users from an Exxon Mobile computer were deleting information regarding harmful effects of an oil spill. Moreover, First Amendment Scholar and USA Today editorial, John Seigenthalar, searched his biography on Wikipedia and found very disturbing pieces of information that he was Robert Kennedy’s assassination. In reality, he was Kennedy’s administrative assistant; not his assassination (Kornblum, 2005). With so many errors found on Wikipedia, information posted on its site cannot stand to be creditable without proper validation from other reliable sources. In conclusion, Wikipedia has made itself known internationally on the web. Search engines such as Yahoo and Google, lists Wikipedia as a primary online source for information. Although Wikipedia is easy to use in quick timing, it cannot provide assurance that the information posted is accurate, non-bias, and free from any distortion. Although many would argue that corrections are posted every minute of the day, it does not change the fact that false information has still been shared. There is no way to stop falsely information from appearing on other sites that cited from Wikipedia before the corrections were made; there is no way to stop falsely information from appearing on a college student’s term paper or false information that has traveled through the grapevine in someone’s place of work. Overall, when people decide to research any subject matter, they are expecting sources to provide creditable and valid information; not to use a source in which its creditability and validity remains in question. References: Comparison of wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. (2008). Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-7-22. doi:10.1108/00907320810851998 Giles, Jim (2005). Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head. Nature 438, 900-901. Retrieved from www.nature.com/nature/journal/438/nyoyo/438900 Kornblum, J. (2005, Dec 07). It's online, but is it true' ; misinformation undermines freewheeling wikipedia. USA TODAY, pp. D.7-D.7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/408990122'accountid=35812 MSNBC (2005). Science Journal Finds Wikipedia Pretty Accurate. Retrieved from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/104782071 Online wikipedia is not britannica - but it's close. (2006, Jan 05). The Christian Science Monitor, pp. 13-13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405550744'accountid=35812 Postash, Brett (2010). We live in a Wiki World. Independent School, Spring 2010. Vol.69, Issue 3, pg. 98-105.