Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
using technology and its effect to education
technology and its influence on education
technology in education eassy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: using technology and its effect to education
From the dawn of its time, mankind has always created mistakes and errors. In all of its creations and inventions, there is bound to be some error here or there. Mediums such as print and digital are innovations of mankind. Therefore, we can conclude that such mediums contain some type of error or inaccuracy. For the past decade, two such “pedias” have been argued about their accuracy, reliability, and facilitation. Even though it contains error by allowing common people to edit it, Wikipedia is a more helpful and comprehensible source of information than the intricacy and difficulty created by the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Despite their earlier claims and assertions, scientists and modern commenters are now withdrawing most of their accusations. Not only are they realizing that Wikipedia’s articles and information are void of numerous errors but also are witnessing the rapidly increasing use of Wikipedia, compared to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. One such columnist, Cecil Adams, recently withdrew his accusation of Wikipedia: “Quit with the Wikipedia because from the standpoint of reliability, Wikipedia might as well be written by gorillas”(Adams). Critics, like Adams, were forced to change their view because of a recent journal that compared both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. This journal, Nature, found out that out of forty-two articles analyzed by experts, both references contained the same amount of major errors, establishing the fact that Wikipedia is near accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (Wolchover). Thus Wikipedia’s accuracy is better than what most reviewers thought would be.
Only last year, Encyclopedia Britannica declared that they would no longer be publishing any more print versions. After...
... middle of paper ...
... for many people: to contribute and safeguard the truth. Wikipedia has always played such a key opponent to the Encyclopedia Britannica because of its accessibility and use of technology. Thus Wikipedia is a very popular source of information not only because of it efficiency but also because of its uniqueness.
Works Cited
Adams, Cecil. Interview by Conrad. The Straight Dope. The Chicago Reader, 13 July 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Ashman, Matthew. “Students debate value of Wikipedia as reliable source”. Daily Sundial. California State University, 26 March 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Northern Essex Community College. “Wikipedia: Pros and Cons”. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Silverman, Matt. “Encyclopedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia”. Mashable.com. 16 March 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Wolchover, Natalie. "How Accurate Is Wikipedia?" LiveScience.com. 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
Sean Kamperman the author of “The Wikipedia Game: Boring, Pointless, or Neither” believes that wikipedia can be helpful with educational learning purposes. Wikipedia is known for plagiarism and fake information. People make Wikipedia have a bad reputation in schools especially in english classes. Wikipedia can be a source of entertainment and self improvement for some people. Some people might just research stuff on Wikipedia to find interesting articles. In “Wikihunt” many Wikipedia users have “discovered” a game of their own, this involves creativity so it brings out the creative qualities of people. Wikipedia is a educational game and it's also free it's convenient for people. The game “Wikihunt” involves two people in separate computers
At its beginnings, the internet crafted a new but familiar form of manufacturing: the mass production of digital texts. In fact, in 1440 Gutenberg first originated the idea of mass production of texts with his invention of the Printing Press. For the first time, an automated process was able to replicate script. This new technology was not without its shortcomings. First, the printing press used limited materials. Next, as Mumford notes, the advent of print led calligraphers and manuscript copyists out of work. Furthermore, as Graff finds, it created “typographical fixity”—material once printed cannot be changed. Finally, mass production was dependent and limited to large markets (Mumf...
I think the main idea from the article “How Google, Wikipedia Have Changed Our Lives – For Better and Worse” who was written by Jennifer Woodard is how this generation of people rely entirely too much on the internet to find their answers for school and everyday life. When people used to research for information they were looking for they could spend hours in the library, reading countless books to find their answers and even find more then what they were looking for. Now when researching people are so used to finding out what they want to know it only takes seconds to type in in your phone and find on Google your answer. Learning before there was computers or google, you had to listen to the whole lecture to get an understanding of everything
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.
Andrea Schlesinger’s, “In Google We Trust” a chapter in her book The Death of Why? The issue is that the internet has changed people and that it may not be a good thing. Google has changed the way that people think greatly, especially in our ability to analyze, understand and know the source of the information we receive from google.
...usion, Murley argues that Wikipedia is a great starting point because it provides references to other reputable sources. In order to use it appropriately, however, librarians and other instructors should teach researchers how to evaluate the articles for authority, completeness, bias, and accuracy. (2010, p. 599)
The internet has become a universal tool for people to acquire loads of information from a number of reliable sources in a matter of milliseconds. Thanks to popular search engines such as Bing and Google it has formulated a sense of information optimization during a time in which the speed in which you gather information is almost as important as the quality of information itself. Books have almost become a thing of the past as people have instead relied on the internet to read and gather information. New York Times bestseller and author of 'What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains: The Shallows, Nicholas Carr addresses his argument that while the internet
Carr, like many people, fear the possibility that Google and the Internet will affect knowledge itself when he reveals that “Maybe I’m just a worrywart” (326). But the Internet as every instrument, it requires to learn how to use it. A process that very likely will last decades and maybe longer, considering how insanely complex the instrument seems. Google and current’s technologies all have “drawing power”. The kind of power that continues to offer readers the ultimate diversity of mass communication. Technology’s needs grow with almost the same pace, human culture and civilization do. We can all agree that a vast number of people prefer to search something in Google rather than reading a book, but the essence remains the same, people
Wikipedia is not considered reliable due to the fact that it can be edited by everyone, so we do not know about the accuracy of the information or the actual contributors of the article. Also due to the random editing feature of Wikipedia the information quite a times has to be cross checked with other sources thus making Wikipedia an unreliable source of information. Since Britannica authors are more experts and knowledgeable in their field of expertise, it can be trusted as a genuine source of information and can be used for research. Wikipedia contributors are always anonymous and free to just share their part of knowledge on the forum and therefore we really have to cross check with other sources to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia accepts the fact that it cannot be used for research purposes. Another feature of Wikipedia is that ...
Is the information found on Wikipedia a credible source? After reading this article the answer is no. According to Erlandson, “Wikipedia articles are written largely by anonymous authors who may or may not have expertise in a particular subject area.”. This leaves a lot of room for misconstrued facts and untrue information to slip into articles potentially misguiding its readers research. Now, this isn’t to say that Wikipedia can’t be used at all for research purposes. Wikipedia is a window that allows for you to see how different ideas and topics relate to one another; this way of thinking allows for us as writers to broaden our horizons and think in ways that we might have not previously
Wikipedia, a crowdsourced online encyclopedia, is extremely beneficial to people who want facts, not opinions, on a wide range of topics. Occasionally, a volunteer editor will insert his or her opinion while creating or editing a page, as was the case with Leonardo DiCaprio's Wikipedia page when someone edited the page and wrote "FINALLY HAS A GODD***ED OSCAR" repeatedly, spoiling the actor's Wikipedia page. While Leonardo DiCaprio did finally win an Oscar for his work, the edit clearly shows bias, violating Wikipedia's regulations. Public figures, including politicians, authors and entrepreneurs, should have a Wikipedia page so that when people are looking for factual information, it is easy to find. A person needn't be as famous as Leonardo
The "pervasive, invasive information infrastructure...is as much a part of our lives as religion was for medieval surfs" (Tetzeli 1994, p. 60). But is it too much? We've all seen the mind-numbing statistics about the exponential growth of information and of technological means of distributing and accessing it. However, some people question whether the problem really is one of overload. One source of the problem is actually the multiplicity of communication channels. Unlike earlier eras, such as when printing presses replaced manuscript copying, new technologies are not replacing older ones but are adding to the host of media choices (Davidson 1996). With these multiple channels the information flow is now simultaneous and multidirectional. However, most traditional information management practices are too linear and specific: they were pipes developed for a stream, not an ocean (Alesandrini 1992). The sheer quantity of information and the speed with which it can be acquired give an illusion of accomplishment (Uline 1996).
Now that we are living in an ever changing world, technology is viewed as the most resourceful tool in keeping up with the pace. Without the use of technology, communication would be limited to using mail for delivery and encyclopedias for research. Although technology has improved the way we communicate and find information for research, the information is not always valid. Unfortunately, for those of us who use the internet for shopping, research, or reading articles of personal interest the information is not treated the same as a your magazine or book. While such literature is reviewed by an editorial staff, internet literature or information can be published by anyone. In order to reap the full benefit of having the use of technology for any purpose, there are five basic criteria’s one must keep in mind as an evaluating tool for deciding whether or not the particular website is a reliable source for information.
The discussion into the relevance of this question can only be fabricated based on the definitive consideration of the internet, a key digital facet that expedites the abrasion of print publications. The internet has rendered access to information very effective, easy and strategic. Gone are the days when one would walk miles to the nearest library in order to satisfy their appetite for reading. With the internet, information storage has largely been restructured and can be retrieved in various digital forms. It is therefore commonsensical to assume that many publications, previously in print form, will eventually appear in digital format as e-books. To champions of printed books, this futuristic scenario provides the basis for their arguments.
Books are the oldest medium of communication. Book has been the largest surviving source of print media. Although modern technology and electronic media have greatly influenced the mindset of people, books are still referred as the most essential tool to gain knowledge and information. History recalls that education and learning reached towards every person after print media; especially after printing of books. Preservation of information, education and past events of history have been stored and known to us only because of the influencing and effective books.