User:Elebai/sandbox

Wikipedia appears to have information on just about any subject. If there is a word or phrase that I want to explore, I go to Wikipedia. If there is a particular subject that pops up and I want to learn more about, I go to Wikipedia. If a subject comes up in class and I am not familiar with it, I go to Wikipedia. When someone mentions a subject and I am not familiar with it, I will make a mental note of it and later go to Wikipedia to learn more about it. It never fails to amaze me how much information is on Wikipedia. As an example, I was watching a series on TV that was about the War of the Roses. I wanted to find out how accurate the serious was to the actual historical events. The first place I looked was Wikipedia and I found a wealth of information on the War of the Roses and found out that the series was pretty faithful to the historical events. It is an unending source of information for me. I use it regularly and have come to rely on it when searching for information that I need to know now. In the article, Wikipedia—the unplanned miracle, Clay Shirky of the Guardian states ”Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work in the world. That statement is both ordinary and astonishing: it is a simple reflection of its enormous readership…” I am not the only one doing this, it appears. My claim is this: Wikipedia is a great source of information as long as those that use it know how to use it.

In learning how to use the information on Wikipedia, it is important to address a concern that many people, most notably teachers, who believe that the information that is found in Wikipedia is unreliable. Anyone can edit and the information on there. People go on there just to put in inaccurate information. Other people who are not qualified on a particular subject will go in there and just put their slanted view of that information. However, as was pointed out in the article, Encyclopedias Go Head To Head, “However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature— the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica’s coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule” (Giles 900). It was pointed out in the article that the speed in which errors and found and corrected is beyond anything that Britannica can do. Granted, it was a very small comparison but the number of errors that were found in both says how information can have errors in it no matter the source. The conclusion that one can reach is that no matter the source of the information, whether it be Wikipedia or Britannica, for instance, there can be errors in them, which makes Wikipedia as reliable as any other encyclopedia.

There is a system of checks and balances in the writing that goes on in Wikipedia. This point again makes the argument that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. Shirky in his article states that “Many of Wikipedia's critics have focused on the fact that the software lets anyone edit anything; what they miss is that the social constraints of the committed editors keep that capability in check. As easy as the software makes it to do damage, it makes it even easier to undo damage” (Shirky). The point is that there are constraints that keep in check those that are malicious in nature and who try to destroy or otherwise mislead that which responsible persons have published in Wikipedia. The system of checks and balances helps keep Wikipedia as error free as possible. Shirky does go on to state that “Wikipedia isn't perfect, of course. Many mediocre articles need improvement. The editors are not diverse enough in age, gender or ethnicity” (Shirky). Since Wikipedia does have a system of checks and balances, information found in Wikipedia can be found to be as reliable as any other source of information. It is up to us as readers to understand that no source of information is completely perfect and without errors.

In conclusion, I do try to be a discerning and cautious user of Wikipedia and it can be a helpful tool. I have been warned again and again by past teachers that I cannot use Wikipedia as a quotable source. But again and again, more times than not, that is where I started out my search for information and that is where I go when I when I come across a word or phrase that I do not understand. In Robert Cummings article, Are We Ready to use Wikipedia to Teach Writing? he makes the point that we can use Wikipedia to teach writing. He states that “One of the foremost problems in teaching writing in the college classroom is helping students gain a more profound concept of audience. Trained for years to write answers to short questions in text books, while writing fewer and fewer essays in high school, students often come to college first-year composition without much appreciation for the fact that real humans read their writing. Wikipedia changes this writing environment, and students are often shocked when Wikipedians respond to their contributions with a critical eye. Sometimes those responses are polite, and sometimes, not, but they are mostly accurate and engaging.” (Cummings). Knowing how to use Wikipedia feedback mechanism will help me become a better writer. Works Cited

Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing? By Robert Cummings www.insidehighered.com/view/2009/03/12/cummings

Encyclopedias Go Head To Head, by Jim Giles https://minneapolis.ims.mnscu.edu/d2l/le/content/2265654/fullscreen/18821036/View

Wikipedia—the unplanned miracle by Clay Shirky http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/14/wikipedia-unplanned-miracle-10-years