User:Cactab

Web 2.0 Technology Argument Research and written assignments are an inevitable aspect of college. Prior to the internet, students depended on text books, periodicals, magazines and other library resources to accomplish assignments. Currently, in contrast, students are able to utilize archaic academic resources such as books or library resources and the internet in order to complete assignments. The internet allows students to complete assignments efficiently on an infinite number of topics. However, the significant role of the internet in the academic realm spurs debate among teachers concerning the credibility of certain websites. Teachers encourage students to access reputable websites, which contain accurate information and avoid those sites that do not. Some websites are easily recognizable as not credible, but other sites such as Wikipedia are hotly contested as not credible or credible. For instance, many teachers have banned Wikipedia from research and written assignments for many of the reasons that make it such a useful source for any academic assignment. Despite the debate that circles around Wikipedia, the characteristics which make up the site enables Wikipedia to be a vital tool for students for research and written assignments. In general, teachers and professors criticize the use of Wikipedia for research and written assignments because of its open participation policy. In his book titled, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond, Axel Bruns highlights Wikipedia’s open participation policy: “Content in wikis is inherently designed to be easily editable by all users of the wiki system” (103). Many teachers are weary of Wikipedia because as Bruns explains, information is so readily “editable” by any user on Wikipedia despite or regardless of the user’s credentials on a subject. However, many teachers are unaware that a majority of the information on Wikipedia comes from reputable websites that center and perfect a certain subject (Bruns104). For instance, Bruns states, Wikipedia is an “aggregation of multiple and diverse such community knowledge bases into a unified, single project” (104). Even though anyone can edit or delete the content on a wiki page, Bruns claims, the information is generally accurate and from reputable sources outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, the criticism teachers often have concerning the credibility of information on Wikipedia becomes erroneous, because most information comes from a reputable source. In addition, Wikipedia’s open participation policy allows users to create a wide variety of pages on different subjects, which will inevitably benefit students on any assignmen. For instance, Bruns notes: “Wikipedia is able to cover such topical areas in great detail and thereby affirms their importance to the everyday lives of its users” (122). Bruns alludes to the wide variety of topics Wikipedia is able to cover through the policy of open participation. Furthermore, Bruns highlights the effect the open participation has on the users of Wikipedia and suggests it plays a vital role in their Wikipedia experience. The open participation policy allows Wikipedia users to create and benefit from various pages which many of its users, as Bruns points out, depend on. Without this specific policy, which many criticize, students and everyday Wikipedia users would be devoid of the important role Wikipedia plays in their lives. Teachers and professors often criticize Wikipedia because it requires creators to take on a neutral point of view, despite how vital the policy is to Wikipedia in order for it to be an academic resource. For instance, the NPOV policy enables Wikipedia to be a practical academic resource. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy enables Wikipedia to be as Bruns notes, an “encyclopedia that is representative of many points of view” (120). The wide variety of view points on a single subject benefits students because the information is well rounded due to the eclectic users who respond to the wiki page. However, Bruns notes, critics claim Wikipedia’s NPOV policy creates “rather weak and indecisive consensus position” (119). Furthermore, Bruns implies, critics claim the NPOV policy lowers the quality of the content within the wiki page, because users cannot take a radical stance or voice their opinions. On the other hand, given the increased number of people who contribute knowledge to Wikipedia, eliminating the NPOV policy would create a conflict of opinion among users (Bruns 119). Conflicts could lead to spiteful editing or vandalism of a wiki page, undermining the purpose of Wikipedia as a source of credible knowledge. Ultimately, the NPOV policy effectively enables Wikipedia to cover a wide number of topics, created by a large number of people, allowing it to be a great academic tool. Even though many students waste hours of time hoping writing and research assignments would magically disappear from their academic responsibilities, but unfortunately those dreadful assignments will forever be a part of the education process. Furthermore, students will always have to rely on secondary sources to successfully complete projects. Unfortunately, similar to writing and research assignments, the controversy surrounding what sources are permitted in an academic assignment will always be an issue for teachers and professors. Although many teachers and professors criticize Wikipedia for its open participation policy and its NPOV policy, these are exactly the policies which make Wikipedia a great resource for students. Therefore, when will the debate concerning the credibility of Wikipedia end?

Works Cited Bruns, Axel. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Print.