Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source because there is a very large chance that it contains biased or slanted information as well as unrealiable sources. Even if an article does not contain such things, one would have to spend an enormous amount of time researching the subject and auditing the sources just to be reassured of this, which is not only a waste of time but is especially inconvenient. Wikipedia is great to use as a starting point for an overall view of a subject but research on a certain subject should be extended beyond a Wikipedia article. This would not be a problem if the average person actually went above and beyond to do this when learning about particular topic, but unfortunately they do not. People all too often make the mistake of not taking things they learn from Wikipedia with a grain of salt. While Wikipedia is great for a quick reference and contains almost anything anyone can dream of, it has its flaws. Articles may be deemed unreliable because of Wikipedia's anonymity. Anyone can edit or delete anything that he desires, whether correct or not.
These strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia tell us a great deal about the potential effects of technology on our society in many ways. Wikipedia's strengths show us that technology has the ability to help people share knowledge with others. The more knowledge and different points of view that are out there, the better it is for our society. These technologies, such as Wikipedia, have helped to broaden the way we think and have brought convenience to our finger tips. Because the vast majority of people in the United States frequently refer to Wikipedia for its promptness, it implies that we are a culture who yearns for quick responses and when we do not receive one, we get frustrated or impatient. When people participate on Wikipedia, whether writing or reading articles, despite the weaknesses, such as the anonymity and lack of credentials, it implies that people may not know or even care that they may be writing or reading flawed articles. It is evident that our culture is becoming more accepting of things without actually questioning their validity.
Although I have never used Wikipedia as a scholarly source in the past, I have learned from our article audit that I definitely shouldn't believe everything that is written. Even if every source that is sited in an article is legitimate, the article may still be slanted towards one position since people can pick and choose what information to provide. Because of this, many sources are not used wholly. I will probably always use Wikipedia if I need to know get a generalized overview on a subject but I will never take the information learned to heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment