User:Sarahhhh x 92

Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a free, multilingual, open-content encyclopedia under constant criticism of scholars, teachers, and researchers alike. Often denoted for its ability to be edited by anyone, I chose to find out:
 * Although Wikipedia contains certain editing flaws, which keep Wikipedia from maintaining a completely reliable reputation, does the overall benefits of this reference overpower the slight imperfections found in this and all encyclopedias?

Wiki
A wiki is the technology used to allow anybody at any time or place to edit and create pages on Wikipedia, its most noted feature. The specific wiki used for Wikipedia is called MediaWiki, custom made by Lee Daniel Crocker. Although wikis are commonly used in the business world to establish Intranets throughout a company, they still have not created a credible record.

Editing Software
Although all of Wikipedia's main editing comes from the users themselves, Wikipedia has special editors and a few editing programs to attempt to prevent vandalism. The servers, which check page requests and information additions or depletions, are run by Squid Cache, a proxy server company. In addition, a new website, called WikiScanner, assists in the tracking of edits made to Wikipedia pages. This tracking allows Wikipedia to find IP addresses committing constant vandalism and limit or remove their editing abilities. Public computer areas, such as Council Rock High School South, are often blocked from editing due to regular sabotage. Although the information added to articles is not directly scanned, many users quickly catch and fix mistakes and vandalism is caught and punished.

The Guardian
The Guardian was the first magazine to address the issue of open-content editing on Wikipedia. To truly test the reliability, they set up a panel of six experts to analyze six different articles all relating directly to the scholar's area of expertise. Once studied religiously, four experts mentioned that the articles were "factually sound and correct, with no glaring inaccuracies," and three found that their articles contained "much useful information, including well-selected links, making it possible to 'access much information quickly.'" An insight into The Guardian's study found in the article "Can you Trust Wikipedia?" added that the only issues with the articles by the panel were small omissions or inaccuracies, an unbalanced explanation of certain aspects of an article and difficulties in reading comprehension.

Nature
Inspired by The Guardian's peek into the wide world of online encyclopedias, Nature, another magazine, decided to directly compare Wikipedia articles to printed articles found in Encyclopedia Britannica. Out of 42 articles selected from both resources, only four serious inaccuracies were found in Wikipedia's articles as well as four serious mistakes in Encyclopedia Britannica's selections. The only noted difference was the Wikipedia articles were less organized and slightly more difficult to comprehend. By this study, Nature proved that with a simplified writing style and improvement to the reading ease, Wikipedia's articles and Encyclopedia Britannica's articles would be of equivalent accuracy. Ultimately, Britannica was upset about this study and began to voice their opinion of Wikipedia as "fatally flawed."

Online Studies
In response to the conflict caused by the recent Nature study, many more expert studies were completed comparing Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and many other printed and online encyclopedias. In an effort to back up the original comparison by Nature, fifty contributors took a web-based survey to review a specific article. Of these fifty people, thirty-eight or 76% strongly agreed that the Wikipedia article was accurate and twenty-three or 46% agreed that the article was complete. Eleven of the surveyed or 22% found Wikipedia's article more complete than and superior to a corresponding Britannica article in comparison to the seven people in support of Britannica's article. Ultimately, this study proved that Wikipedia was useful and accurate in the opinions of average people, not just experts, who are potentially the users.

Unbiased
Due to Wikipedia's open editing nature, many people with different backgrounds, beliefs, and points of view can supply information to a single, controversial topic. This mix of opinions allows articles to maintain a non-biased tone and supply a researcher simply with information and fact or to hear speakers from all sides of a controversial issue.

Unique Articles
Unlike printed encyclopedias, or the online version of printed encyclopedias, Wikipedia allows for topics that are not yet explained, to have pages created for them. Although the editing servers find and delete inappropriate articles or articles strictly created as vandalism, with properly noted sources and correct information, a page can be created about anything. In addition, Wikipedia allows users to create a new page to focus on a specific detail of a larger, broader issue. (Reliability of Wikipedia)

Further Sources
A unique characteristic of Wikipedia is the many hyperlinks found within an article. Whether to another Wikipedia article or to a source used in the creation, Wikipedia's hyperlinks allow researchers to quickly and easily find more information on their searched topic.

Do the benefits outweigh the flaws?
In the end, Wikipedia supplies information with on overall advantageous effort, although the benefits may come with precautions. With the provided information from studies that Wikipedia remains as reliable as printed encyclopedias in circulation for decades, it is easily proven that Wikipedia is a reliable source when used in corroboration with other outlets of information. However, in the world of education, many believe Wikipedia should not be used until accuracy increases.

Should Wikipedia be allowed for use in school?
Even the co-creator of the webpage, Jimmy Wales, states “I would agree with your teachers that that isn’t the right way to use Wikipedia. This site is a wonderful starting point for research. But it’s only a starting point because there’s always a chance that there’s something wrong, and you should check your sources if you are writing a paper” (10 Questions). Many scholars and experts believe that Wikipedia can provide a very intricate overview of a topic, excellent to spike curiosity, but that further information should be found by other means of research. Nevertheless, Wikipedia should still be qualified in the same regards as its printed or online counterparts, and the same status as being a “starting point” should apply to other encyclopedias as well.

Want to know more?
Check out:
 * Wikipedia
 * Reliability of Wikipedia
 * Poe, Marshall. "the Hive." Atlantic Monthly. Sep 2006. pg. 86
 * Wales, Jimmy. Interview. "10 Questions. (Wikipedia)." Time. 2 April 2007. pg. 6