The world wide web has digitised information and converged the way we access information. We view newspapers online via a computer or on our mobile phones, and we look up information by searching a key word rather than flicking through an alphebetised encyclopedia. The internet provides us with a seemingly limitless source of information, and now, it also allows us to contribute to that information through blogs, wiki’s and other user-generated sites.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedic data-base with users world-wide, it offers millions of articles in hundreds of languages. It is comparable to the grand encyclopedic volumes which once occupied the bookshelves of households the world over, but is much larger and taps into an infinite source of contributors. While similar in the aims of a physical encyclopedia, that is, to provide a wealth of reference information on the widest range of topics possible, it greatly differs in its creation and delivery.
Wikipedia is a free source of information which is created by the people who use it, unlike traditional encyclopedias which are written and edited by professional experts. It is mainly because of this fact that Wikipedia faces criticism as to the reliability of its information, and as a result, is often not considered a trusted source of information for purposes of reference at higher educational levels. The pros and cons of Wikipedia are many and varied. A few of the strenghths and opportunities of the site include its accessibility, it’s virtual over pysical size, its ability to be revised and edited at no cost to the user, and that it is completely free to access. As it provides an opportunity for communal collaboration, it removes itself from the traditional heirarchial method o...
... middle of paper ...
...out of a new era and the world is increasingly becoming digital, it comes down to the fact that Wikipedia “taps an almost infinite wealth of talent, energy, and insight that far exceeds what Britannica’s closed model can muster”8 and through this, is on the route to offering a higher quality constantly improved encyclopedic online library.
Works Cited
Ayers, P., Matthews, C. & Yates, B. (2008). How Wikipedia Works. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Reagle, J. M. Jnr. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia. USA: MIT Press.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books.
Vivian, J. (2011). The media of mass communication (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.
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
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.
Back in the modern days, the Internet is a whole collection of a media composed of reproductions. It is a virtual space, which has no original and lacks even a master copy. We, human as the user, offer to put the information inside the space. However web pages do not exist until they are uploaded onto the Internet by the author, and “reproduced” on our computer. Nowadays we can even create our own webpage on the cloud. To look for an original on the Internet is such a hard job since there are somehow no real material base to
The common man/woman writes Wikipedia. There is no peer review, there are no editors, and there are no revision dates. In fact, Wikipedia encourages and advises its users to verify the information presented in its content. One positive characteristic Wikipedia has is its currency. An article in another encyclopedia may take months to write, but contributors often write articles on Wikipedia within a month of the occurrence of an event. Another positive feature is its popularity. Millions of users use Wikipedia. It provides dependable material, resolves their questions, and besides, Wikipedia is easy to use.
In today’s society information is everywhere. We have libraries, but we also have online resources. Information can be obtained from almost everywhere today, but how accurate are these websites in giving us actual facts and not just beliefs or people’s opinions. One of the most popular resources that we use to gather information is the famous Wikipedia. Type anything in any web search engine and you will most likely get results from Wikipedia. But is Wikipedia accurate? If we look at the websites URL, we can see that it’s a nonprofit organization, and a vast majority of people contribute, so there is no author, email, or phone number, or any way to contact. To verify how accurate all the information is. Putting Wikipedia to the test
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluatingstudent-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal for Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995.
Despite our English teachers’ best efforts each and every one of us at some point in our writing careers have stumbled upon a source of information from the infamous website Wikipedia. In this article the writer discusses both the pros and the cons of the controversial online encyclopedia in an attempt to allow us to come up with our own conclusions about it’s credibility as a source. Wikipedia provides a vast array of articles, over 31 million, on numerous topics. Some of the benefits of Wikipedia include its user friendly site. With its easy to maneuver layout and useful sub-links to help direct you, it’s easy to see why some favor this popular search. This setup allows for you to find new possible connections between subjects while also brainstorm different unique ideas to link with your paper.
Wikipedia is a free virtual encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, who can be anonymous or recognized by their true identity. The website allows anyone to add or delete information, which explains why the website’s information is frequently updated. Unfortunately, the website can be edited so easily, people tend to take advantage of this privilege of editing freely. Anonymous users often add false, offensive, or inappropriate texts or images that can cause confusion or problems for other people. Wikipedia is not a reliable website for educational use because of the lack of trust, absence of revision of accuracy, and publicity damage to the website.
Lundin, Rebecca W. "Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy." Computers and Composition 25.4 (2008): 432-48. Science Direct. Elsevier Inc., 2008. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. .
Firstly, Wikipedia is a free-for-all informative source, meaning that anyone can type something and say it’s a fact. In lieu of credentials, students are often warned against using Wikipedia due to doubtful credential, which further diminishes ethos. There is no pathos, as no connection to the audience can be created. The audience will have a nagging suspicion in the back of their heads, wondering if print adds up to fact, and through this both pathos and ethos are shot down; thus no connection to the audience is established. The tonality remains monotone throughout the entire
In the first paragraph, Jaron appeals to the pathos of the reader; he assumes that the reader is of the generation that has grown up in the digital age, thus they would agree that the most important aspect of the internet is the people who contribute to it. However, there is no reason to ever assume that. Some people may actually believe that user contribution detracts from what makes the internet a viable source of information. For example, if the internet were controlled by academia, it would most likely be a peer reviewed source of information. However, as it is, anyone can contribute information to the internet, which makes the internet not a reliable source for knowledge. We can see this in academia, which typically does not support the use of Wikipedia as an academic source, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies entirely on user contribution.
Since the invention of the world wide web in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee, the global spread of information has become increasingly easy, as more and more resources become available online. The internet can be a useful tool in research and a great way to accumulate valuable information and knowledge, and can be a medium used to spark intelligent and meaningful discussions, but only if used correctly. Poor navigation of the surplus of content available online can lead to a sinkhole of inaccurate and, frankly, bullshit sources. Attempts at academic communication via online sources can devolve into echo rooms or mindless, childish retorts.
In 1990 the World Wide Web was invented, creating a new and never before seen information outlet. Along with the creation of the World Wide Web came the simple to use, never ending access to information. This created a new way for educators and students to achieve information. Now students, instead of researching through books and news articles, and reading the entirety of the literary work, students are able to use a computer, and type in the keywords for the subject they wished to know about.
Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. By August 8, 2001, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[30] On September 25, 2001, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[31] And by the end of 2001 it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[32] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the 1408 Yongle Encyclopedia, which
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.