Running head: WIKIPEDIA CREDITABLITY DEBATE

Wikipedia Creditability Debate Celena Collins, Daniel Troost, Katie Williams, and Kristin Harrison MGT 521 - Management May 7, 2012 Dr. Patrick Murray

WIKIPEDIA CREDITABLITY DEBATE

Wikipedia is A Creditable Source Katie Williams: Regardless of the number of people who state that Wikipedia is not a valid source to use as a reference in a scholarly manner, there are those of us who believe that Wikipedia is a good source of information in which is updated continually to make all information provided within their articles current. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, which has a phenomenal growth on the World-Wide Internet. However, even though Wikipedia critics state that because anyone can edit the information available on this site, the information is not credible academically; so many Universities do not allow students to use this site as a source of reference for any academic papers. However, many studies show that Wikipedia information is valid compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica online information. Critics of Wikipedia argue that because anyone can add a change or revise a Wikipedia entry, it cannot compete with the academic integrity of Encyclopedia Britannica, which relies on paid professionals and experts to produce their entries. However, a study Nature conducted shows that, on average, Wikipedia and Britannica articles are comparable in their frequency of errors. Greater oversight from scientists, researchers, and other experts can enhance Wikipedia's accuracy even more. Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable [respected] standard-bearer of facts about the world around us (Terdiman, 2005). Kristin Harrison: In supporting the premise that Wikipedia can be used as a credible and valid source of information, it is understood that this goes against popular opinion, although popular opinion itself is rarely based on research. Wikipedia roots were to be a free online encyclopedia. This

WIKIPEDIA CREDITABLITY DEBATE

required an elaborate system of peer review and highly qualified contributors, which made the writing of articles slow. During 2000, Jimmy Wales, and Larry Sanger, whom Wales had employed to work on the project, discussed ways of supplementing Nupedia with a more open, complementary project. Multiple sources suggested that a wiki might allow members of the public to contribute material, and Nupedias first wiki went online on January 10, 2001. (Wikipedia: History 2012) Common arguments against the use of Wikipedia are because of the credibility of the constant contributing edits authors. Researchers using Wikipedia as a resource need to look to Featured articles for those that have gone through the contributing authors and mechanisms that assist to carry out the important work of crafting a high-quality resource while maintaining civility. (Wikipedia: About 2012) In these articles you will find material at the level of any other thought out researched publication that still require evaluation for bias, relevance, and credibility toward the research being done. Because of the popularity and ease of use of Wikipedia there have been tools developed specifically for the serious researcher to evaluate the credibility of Wikipedia articles and their editors. Use of WikiDashboard significantly increased article and author credibility judgments. (Pirolli, Wollny, & Bongwon, 2009, para. 1) The benefits of Wikipedia, is that it is an easily accessible source of information for those looking as well as a medium to gather current information to eventually develop credible, valid, and current schools of thought. In response to the public opinion that Wikipedia is not a credible and valid source of information, I maintain that Wikipedia if evaluated as diligently as any other written source by the researcher, can be as valid and credible source of information as any other.

WIKIPEDIA CREDITABLITY DEBATE Opposing Wikipedias Creditability Daniel Troost: [INSERT DANIELS SECTION] Celena Collins:

Wikipedia is edited by the public at will, and although it will be corrected eventually by one of the 75,000 active contributors (Rand, 2010) this does not make for a reliable source of information. At any time, you can be reading inaccurate information and you will not know unless you are constantly monitoring that information, or find out otherwise from a more reliable source. The way these articles are remotely monitored is through an online democracy. If an article is posted that is questionable, there is a forum that will review the information and check for its validity. The editors do a vote, and the majority vote determines whether the information is valid. (Rand, 2010) These editors are not an authority on all subjects, they find out information just like the rest of the world, so Wikipedia is putting the decision to determine what is valid information in the hands of a few. Wikipedia has also become bias to socially popular culture. There is less updated information on more historical events, especially in the music and entertainment fields, but also as a whole, then there is historical information. The authors conclude that Wikipedia is evidently a product that reflects the social profile of its online users and does not present an unbiased viewof county population and economic power. (Rand, 2010) It does compare to the Encyclopedia in some aspects, but at any time, and for any subject matter that can change.

WIKIPEDIA CREDITABLITY DEBATE

References

Pirolli, P., Wollny, E., & Bongwon, S. (2009, April). So You Know You're Getting the Best Possible Information: A Tool that Increases Wikipedia Credibility. CHI, 1505-1508. Rand, A. (2010). Mediating at the student-Wikipedia intersection. Journal of Library Administration, 50(923), 924-928. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2010.488994
Terdiman, Daniel, and CNET News.com. "Wikipedia's Accuracy Is Comparable to Britannica." User-Generated Content. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Rpt. from "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica." 2005. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 4 May 2012. Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetai sWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&wi ndowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010476204&mode=view&userGroupNam e=uphoenix&jsid=7404379de56b9bf4468ec189781aff8d

Wikipedia: About. (2012). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://www.enwikipedia.org