Post 2: Is Wikipedia Good For Me?

At this moment, I have not read the article "Wikipedia Is Good for You!?" by James P. Purdy.  My thoughts on Wikipedia are it is a good site to refer to if one is curious to know a little bit more about an idea, but Wikipedia is not a credible source for research.  I understand people can create websites to put what they please on it, but one is not as likely to do so just to put something that may not be true on it.

Wikipedia is very accessible for anyone to create an account to edit articles.  I have heard stories from many people about their friends who get on a Wikipedia site and change something, perhaps about their hometown.  For example, someone wrote they were a famous individual coming from the town.  This was a false statement.  Whether someone actually ever read it before it could be edited out is unknown to me, but it makes me consider the fact that maybe there are other false statements I read when I wanted to know more about a topic.  I do not view the site at completely trustworthy.  I know there are good people who write on the site for the sake of spreading knowledge, but I cannot guarantee these people are writing what I read.

In high school, any research paper assigned was, of course, required to have a reference page.  Not one of the teachers at that school allowed for Wikipedia to be a credible source to be used.  I feel these ideas are pretty much engraved in my mind because of this policy.  I just feel I cannot give my trust to Wikipedia.

Now, about 40 minutes later, the article has been read.  I am pleasantly surprised.  My opinions were verified toward the beginning of the article about Wikipedia not being a very acceptable source in the eyes of teachers.  I really like the idea of using Wikipedia to further the topic search one has for a research paper.  I have done this a little before, but I never really thought about what I was actually doing or about how valuable this really is as it is blatantly put in the article.

While the article discusses the process of editors being very much encouraged to cite their sources (or risk their edit getting deleted), my concerns about the dependability still remain.  Additions or changes are discussed and debated, but these are main articles which are searched often.  With over 3.8 million Wikipedia sites, many of these are not maintained regularly.  John Seigenthaler did not even maintain the Wikipedia site about himself.  It took 132 days before those falsities were corrected.  If someone researches an unusual topic to research, what is written is not guaranteed to be true.

The process which happen on Wikipedia about research-based writing and such are very good processes.  Open discussion can always open new ideas the original author may never think about.  This forces one to really review his/her work properly before and after gaining criticism (hopefully constructive) from others.

I do think Wikipedia has its benefits when doing research.  I do think it is a good opportunity to learn more about different ideas.  If not for use as a source, Wikipedia does well to begin the research process.