Yeah, I know this is very late. Anyways, I found the whole critiquing Wiki articles to be very interesting. Wikipedia is something that we take for granted, as it is always there for us, and we use it without second thought. But based on a general group, and possibly class, consensus, Wikipedia is not a very scholarly source overall. Unreliable sources, facts, information, etc. makes wiki not that useful as a source for research papers or any other serious project. However, Wikipedia does seem to be a useful as a quick reference or a quick glance, as it does cover the necessity to learn a subject.
One of the problems that arise out of Wikipedia is that it lacks, at times up to date information, or neglect of certain articles or information. This can be reflected on technology in American culture in that some items are neglected because they are not mainstream. Also in addition, with the open source aspect of Wikipedia, it allows anybody to alter it. This user generated content, though at times seem useful, still contains flaws. There are people, “grief-ers”, whose sole purpose to cause problems. But, then again, there are always people like that, with or without user contribution. Regardless, with any new technology or new idea, there are always strengths, or weaknesses. In Wikipedia’s case, its strength is in the user generated content and easy accessibility, but the weakness include unreliability in sources and possible misinformation.
This assignment, if anything, has taught me that not everything should be taken at base value, especially those we take for granted. Wikipedia, though as useful and resourceful as it is, lacks the reliability of solid sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment