Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/380070777/
.
.
.
Editors in Wikipedia “They pride themselves in adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule: all articles must reflect a Neutral Point of View and POV, or bias, is a misdemeanor that is regularly removed.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. They make great effort in providing good materials and articles that are prone to vandalism are usually locked. Wikipedia locks some articles down but most are open to mess with, one could argue the possibility to publish an article on the internet with twisted lies, reference it on Wikipedia and it is likely to stay up because it is referenced. There are Four Million articles on Wikipedia but only 15,572 are honored “Good articles” meaning that they are “written very well, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyrights licenses.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812.
Basically Wikipedia is a place to start a quick view but for further depth in research, other sources will be needed as mentioned in the article of what’s on Wikipedia and What’s Not...? Assessing Completeness of Information, Shariatmadari (2006) found that “Wikipedia is specifically intended as work reference, where as using a search engine is not.”
The following is an example of on going debate on what to call the opposition group to the government of Syria, the rebel’s faction legitimacy and the government’s current situation. This talk page followed the Wikipedia guide lines, participants used proper referencing and footnotes backing up their arguments and most were aware of not granting an equal status between the rebel’s faction and the current government of Syria fearing that it can very easily be perceived as bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syria
Friday, 31 May 2013
Reliability of Wikipedia
Whether Wikipedia is a reliable source or not? There seems to be no answer to this question, the more I read through related articles to this matter I get more distanced from the answer. Professors tend to push students away from using Wikipedia, this is not based on their personal feelings toward this site but rather it is based on their acknowledgment of its unsafe source of information, indicating the reputation of Wikipedia in where it is based on previous errors or false presentation of information. They argue that it is possible to edit and change the content of an article freely, but looking at the way Wikipedia is structured and how editing is made it will be hard to make improper change on an article. The fight with ‘frontier criminals’ as the article Military History on the electronic frontier points that Wikipedia uses “Kangaroo Courts where the accused are brought before a self-constituted jury…The severest penalty is a ban(exile) for a period of time, or permanent banning.” It is also a successful method to settle a dispute in the talk page. The talk page can be a hot debating place depending on the subject however if it contains perspectives and opinions they can have an overtly political slant.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/380070777/
.
.
.
Editors in Wikipedia “They pride themselves in adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule: all articles must reflect a Neutral Point of View and POV, or bias, is a misdemeanor that is regularly removed.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. They make great effort in providing good materials and articles that are prone to vandalism are usually locked. Wikipedia locks some articles down but most are open to mess with, one could argue the possibility to publish an article on the internet with twisted lies, reference it on Wikipedia and it is likely to stay up because it is referenced. There are Four Million articles on Wikipedia but only 15,572 are honored “Good articles” meaning that they are “written very well, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyrights licenses.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812.
Basically Wikipedia is a place to start a quick view but for further depth in research, other sources will be needed as mentioned in the article of what’s on Wikipedia and What’s Not...? Assessing Completeness of Information, Shariatmadari (2006) found that “Wikipedia is specifically intended as work reference, where as using a search engine is not.”
The following is an example of on going debate on what to call the opposition group to the government of Syria, the rebel’s faction legitimacy and the government’s current situation. This talk page followed the Wikipedia guide lines, participants used proper referencing and footnotes backing up their arguments and most were aware of not granting an equal status between the rebel’s faction and the current government of Syria fearing that it can very easily be perceived as bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syria
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/380070777/
.
.
.
Editors in Wikipedia “They pride themselves in adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule: all articles must reflect a Neutral Point of View and POV, or bias, is a misdemeanor that is regularly removed.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. They make great effort in providing good materials and articles that are prone to vandalism are usually locked. Wikipedia locks some articles down but most are open to mess with, one could argue the possibility to publish an article on the internet with twisted lies, reference it on Wikipedia and it is likely to stay up because it is referenced. There are Four Million articles on Wikipedia but only 15,572 are honored “Good articles” meaning that they are “written very well, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyrights licenses.” Richard Jensen, Military History on Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812.
Basically Wikipedia is a place to start a quick view but for further depth in research, other sources will be needed as mentioned in the article of what’s on Wikipedia and What’s Not...? Assessing Completeness of Information, Shariatmadari (2006) found that “Wikipedia is specifically intended as work reference, where as using a search engine is not.”
The following is an example of on going debate on what to call the opposition group to the government of Syria, the rebel’s faction legitimacy and the government’s current situation. This talk page followed the Wikipedia guide lines, participants used proper referencing and footnotes backing up their arguments and most were aware of not granting an equal status between the rebel’s faction and the current government of Syria fearing that it can very easily be perceived as bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syria
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment