I was unsure about how to take what I was reading. I was always told that Wikipedia was "evil" so to speak. I've never used wiki due to this repetition of negative views of it. Yes I have looked at something to find a name or something small and unimportant, but not for a paper or anything of that scale. I've had multiple friends saying that it's ok to use wiki as long as you use their citation and find the information on that source. To me that was the same as using wiki. Why not look for a better source?
Like the essay says, wiki can be edited by anyone. If someone has a computer and internet access, plus the will and time to do so, they can make a post, or edit someone else's post. This causes more problems than what I read in the essay. I can see things being changed that are not caught by the admins or sweeper bots. Not everything is going to be caught, but with so many Wikipedians how is it possible to revert something at the same time that it is being changed by hundreds or thousands of people? I would get so annoyed. Every time the page is refreshed something would be different and have to be reverted again. What if the revert somehow gets messed up and is wrong after it is fixed? is there a way to fix the fix with another revert? It just seems to complicated.
There is no way to tell if someones publication is truth of false until someone else or thousands more agree or make change it out with the correct information. The checks and citations are helpful, but if they are trashy citations then the information is shot as well. Everything is hand in hand. If one is wrong then most likely the other is too. Plus if false information is left alone and built upon by others nothing is solved. The information becomes invalid, even if some of it was correct. With that it would have to be completely changed, replaced, or extremely edited to a correct state.
When things are right on the page the idea of Wikipedia works perfectly. Though I would still be a little hesitant to use wiki, I would be a little more likely to do so. I know wiki is not supposed to be an Encyclopedia (in the idea of correct-ness) but if there was a way to go and verify each post I'm sure many would not be so against using it. I guess I should rephrase what i said. If there was an easy way to verify the information in the posts. Since it is edited added to by anyone at anytime, this can not be. Even if the one who posts the information is a professor, who is knowledgeable in the topic, there will be those who think they are right and you are wrong and that their opinion or knowledge has the merit to destroy what was already fine and dandy. If things are right.... LEAVE THEM ALONE. Kinda like if your car isn't broke there is no reason to fix it, or no need to break it so you can fix it. That is just idiocy.
On the topic of Wikipedia and literacy, I am not sure where I should start. It is not something that can be solved in one night. Since people will not use spell check. (I am even at fault of this on these blogs) The way the topics are posted on make no sense, at least not if the person did not read what they were editing or adding to. The sentences will be jumbled, the information will repeat itself, and there is no real way to solve this. Unless those doing the posts will stop and read the topic and those posted before, re-read their posts, and make sure not to repeat or dismantle the whole freaking sentence. I for one do not like being discombobulated because of something that makes no sense when I read it.
So in my opinion, there are to many faults for wiki to be used as a source. For it being a way to find a source... maybe. As I use it to find names, places, names of events, etc... It works perfectly, and if someone can tell me a better way to do this please let me know. It's just that in my mind Wikipedia is like a subway with forty or more trains, and about two hundred thousand to many people trying to get on the trans. To many people in one place doing the same exact thing. Then of course there are issues like Wiki leaks that causes more problems around the world. How do we know the information is not being used against the US as it is leaked out to the public, or to anyone in the world that has an internet connection? Oh well that is just my ideas and opinion.
I understand exactly where you are coming from when it comes to the validity of the entries. I feel that right now, the ends (the results) far overpower the means (the regulation).
ReplyDeleteBut when you really think about it, was Wikipedia ever intended to be this great and all powerful, credible source?
I feel as though the real take-away from the whole thing is the change and transformation of information distribution. The reach is HUGE! You're right when it comes to it not being a good source to use to write a term paper, but at the end of the day, you know what Wiki is and you take it at face value.
The article says, "the entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit of miss" (14). I would have to say, the moral of the story is, take it for what it's worth.