As Ron
stated in this particular prompt, most academics denounce the use of Wikipedia,
mainly because of its lack of academic support. The creators of the website
obviously aren’t stupid, look how massive Wikipedia has become. They support their
creation but realize that everything has a downfall. Thus, they allow users to
openly defend and critique Wikipedia. For me, it seemed that there was an argument
and counter argument on every aspect of the website.
Pro: Wikipedia has almost no bureaucracy; one
might say it has none at all. But it isn't total anarchy.
Con: Despite claims to the opposite, Wikipedia is
a bureaucracy, full of rules described as "policies" and
"guidelines" with a hierarchy aimed at enforcing these…
I
hated reading through the pros and cons because it is not my personality to
dwell on things like this. Much like how I deal with people, if I don’t get a
good vibe from something I usually never use it or go back. So for me, it seems
silly to be so for or against something like Wikipedia. Also, half of the
things they were talking about I couldn’t even grasp … technical mumbo-jumbo is
not my strong point. As for critiques, I don’t think that posting the article
helps or hurts the website.
I think for most people, the general idea of how Wikipedia
works is all that is important to them. It doesn’t matter if there is
bureaucracy or not, how editing works, how fast articles are edited, who gets
banned, how fast they are banned, and, my personal favorite, if it’s ran by
nerds or not. These critiques just seem so unnecessary to me.
According
to Michael Gorman, “what is the use of blinding speed and complete convenience
(of the internet) if the results are inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading?” This
quote tells a lot about how I view Wikipedia based on the fact that is
self-regulating and collaborative. Although it is convenient, the average
person doesn’t who contributes to the information. When researching,
specifically for a paper or scholarly work it is important to know the who,
what, when, and where of the information. Wikipedia doesn’t give you that. I
believe, as I said before, that this is the main reason why professors tell
students not to use the website or rely on it.
I have been taught however, to use Wikipedia as
a launching pad for research; to take the information provided and back it up
with scholarly works as I research other materials. This method has served me
well thus far and I hope other students, and Wikipedia users, take the time to
make sure the information is correct. Would you believe everything a stranger
on the side of the road told you? I know I sure wouldn’t.
It’s interesting that you included your perspective of Wikipedia coming from a History major’s standpoint. I do think it is important to put heavy reliance on primary sources, but because there is so much work involved, people often take the easy way out and Google it. Your expression of calling Wikipedia a “social source” was a very fitting and accurate description. I agree with you that the creators/editors of Wikipedia are certainly not unintelligent, their website covers massive amounts of information of god only knows how many topics. I think it’s a humbling perspective realizing that although they might think their site is awesome, it’s not flawless. There’s always room for improvements and always room for the addition of new material.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your point about not being able to comprehend the jargon the articles presented. People don’t really care about the process it takes for information to get to the web; they only care about how easy it is to access it. Honestly, I’ve been guilty of this. And you’re right; the average person (like me) doesn’t contribute information. Even if there’s a topic I’m looking at and I know something that isn’t on there ( and I know it to be true) I don’t feel like wasting important time and updating it. For all I know someone could think it was baloney and delete it seconds later.
You, like Maria, said you that Wikipedia is great as a launching pad for further research, and it makes a scholar’s job ten times easier when, instead of finding new and original information, you can take the information that was presented to you and just find evidence to back it up.
Your use of the term 'social source' is a powerful one, and you raise questions about authorial credibility that we will need to address as we watch all information become digitized...
ReplyDeleteHi Megan,
ReplyDeleteAngela highlighted the similarity to my journal that was apparent to me when I first read over your work. You indicate that you use Wikipedia as a launching pad to help you get to more scholarly sources. You then use these scholarly sources in your paper. You bring up an excellent point about the credibility of all online research when you brought in Dr. Selby. When I had her for class, she emphasized that online journal databases just do not have as much oversight or credibility as print journals do. While I was not sure if I agreed with her, especially as relates to the scholarly databases found on the library website, it made me consider the weight I place on internet information versus print sources. Nice discussion of Wikipedia and your use of it!
Thanks,
Maria