When I first saw the title of the article, I immediately thought that Schiff was going to begin and end with bashing Wikipedia for its inaccuracies, the ability of just about anyone to edit it, and so forth. Gladly, she did not. Schiff made a great effort to begin with the good that Wikipedia provides and the quick access to general information that comes in handy. She even mentions that it got some things right that Encyclopedia Brittanica did not and has an entire webpage dedicated to that. She eventually gets to an interesting point that, while I had not thought about it before reading the article, really sums up Wikipedia’s shortcomings. When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of “But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.” Wikipedia, though, is only five years old. One day, it may grow up.
This is a fair argument. Certainly Wikipedia is very convenient for looking up who won the 1998 World Series or who invented the rubber band, but I would not trust it to provide accurate information when doing a paper or project. Even if I did, the fact remains that it is not a scholarly source, so it would be no use anyways. The idea that a ten year old from Nigeria can sit behind a computer screen and provide me with”psychoanalysis” of Stonewall Jackson doesn’t really conjure up confidence in Wikipedia.
I agree about using it to look up certain information but not relying on it entirely like so many students seem to. I think it's wonderful that wikipedia exists but it shouldn't be used as a primary source for research.
ReplyDeleteI thought many of the same things when I began reading the article. I thought they were about to say how it's not credible and has a ton of misinformation on it. But instead, the author begins to describe how it can be useful. And I really liked how you said that it can be used just to look up little facts and pieces of information. I am guilty of doing this quite frequently myself. Usually I check elsewhere just to double check if I need to know for sure because Wikipedia can not be trusted and I agree with you that it should never be used for scholarly purposes for obvious reasons.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is the first website I tend to visit when conducting research just to receive clarity on a topic or an idea for a subject I plan to write about. Although Schiff condemns the rudimentary voice of the Wiki entries, I find the information presented on Wikipedia to be comprehensive. Although Wikipedia is not deemed as a credible source for scholar compositions in 2011, I believe it will evolve into something highly regarded in the future.
ReplyDelete