Monday, October 30, 2006
Wikipedia: A Non-Stop Shop For Wrong and Right
With the possible exception of the printing press and written language, the Internet has arguably become the most important learning tool the world has ever known.
Anyone with a connection to the World Wide Web can access almost endless amounts of information from anywhere at anytime. As a college student, I have relied on the internet for a lot of information.
However, not all information is created equally.
Though there is a lot of reliable information on the Internet, there is probably just as much bad information. Most of this bad information is easy to spot. Wikipedia, however, is a little trickier.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can create or edit the entries. There are obvious problems with this system.
For example, without so much as even logging in, I just changed the transportation section of the article about Germany to say, "Modern Germany still uses horses as its primary means of transportation." I corrected it immediately, but I think this illustrates my point. [editor's note: Wikipedia is loosely policed by a dedicated pool of volunteers]
What makes Wikipedia so dangerous is so much of the information is accurate. It feels like it can be trusted, and college students seem to be trusting it more and more. The text before and after my edit to the entry on German transportation seemed accurate. I don't know that, but it certainly seemed like it could be trusted.
Wikipedia cannot be trusted, however. It is clear to me by my entry on German transportation that Wikipedia should not be used academically.
And yet, college students do use the site for academic purposes. I can't really understand this.
We have a great big library at our disposal with real encyclopedias. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia have free versions of their online encyclopedias as well. They require a subscription for the full articles, but at least what they do provide for free is academically acceptable. Why not use those? This is what really baffles me.
There is no need for Wikipedia. There is no shortage of free, reliable information, and yet students seem to be using Wikipedia more and more.
So the next time the temptation to use Wikipedia is about to overcome you, go to the library. If you don't have time, or don't feel like the walk, use a different, more reliable online encyclopedia. Demand more of your information. There is no shortage, and I think we can all profit from holding our information providers to higher standards.
[Personal note: This is one of the long-lost articles that I had missed from earlier in the month. I woke up on the 3rd to see my name under a column in the paper, and because I was horribly hung over, I didn't actually remember if I wrote it or not (no record at the home comp), but after thinking back I realized I had typed this one at school and forgot to send myself the unedited copy. This is verbatim from studentprintz.com.]
Anyone with a connection to the World Wide Web can access almost endless amounts of information from anywhere at anytime. As a college student, I have relied on the internet for a lot of information.
However, not all information is created equally.
Though there is a lot of reliable information on the Internet, there is probably just as much bad information. Most of this bad information is easy to spot. Wikipedia, however, is a little trickier.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can create or edit the entries. There are obvious problems with this system.
For example, without so much as even logging in, I just changed the transportation section of the article about Germany to say, "Modern Germany still uses horses as its primary means of transportation." I corrected it immediately, but I think this illustrates my point. [editor's note: Wikipedia is loosely policed by a dedicated pool of volunteers]
What makes Wikipedia so dangerous is so much of the information is accurate. It feels like it can be trusted, and college students seem to be trusting it more and more. The text before and after my edit to the entry on German transportation seemed accurate. I don't know that, but it certainly seemed like it could be trusted.
Wikipedia cannot be trusted, however. It is clear to me by my entry on German transportation that Wikipedia should not be used academically.
And yet, college students do use the site for academic purposes. I can't really understand this.
We have a great big library at our disposal with real encyclopedias. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia have free versions of their online encyclopedias as well. They require a subscription for the full articles, but at least what they do provide for free is academically acceptable. Why not use those? This is what really baffles me.
There is no need for Wikipedia. There is no shortage of free, reliable information, and yet students seem to be using Wikipedia more and more.
So the next time the temptation to use Wikipedia is about to overcome you, go to the library. If you don't have time, or don't feel like the walk, use a different, more reliable online encyclopedia. Demand more of your information. There is no shortage, and I think we can all profit from holding our information providers to higher standards.
[Personal note: This is one of the long-lost articles that I had missed from earlier in the month. I woke up on the 3rd to see my name under a column in the paper, and because I was horribly hung over, I didn't actually remember if I wrote it or not (no record at the home comp), but after thinking back I realized I had typed this one at school and forgot to send myself the unedited copy. This is verbatim from studentprintz.com.]
# posted by bosstoonlou : 8:07 AM
