I was just doing some research for another class and thought that it might be interesting to publish something about the “forbidden pages”* , i.e. wikipedia (* That’s what a study buddy of mine always calls it 
). Most teachers and docents advise their students against using wikipedia, but I think there are arguments on both using and not using it.
Since wikipedia can be edited by pretty much any internet user, the reliability and accuracy of wikipedia articles is often questionable, but then again, just because someone printed something does not mean his sources are any more reliable. Wikipedia offers many articles on basically every topic, it is very up-to-date and depite its reputation surprisingly accurat. Also it can provide a valuable overview on certain topics and often offers links and a list of resources to star further research.
I found a youtube video on wikipedia (its more of an entertaining than informing video), that brings up some of the issues that I just mentioned, along with further arguments, so enjoy!
In my opinion, wikipedia should not be generally banned, but instead be advised to use with caution and to check the facts it provides.
1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Indeed one has to ask the question of reliability about any source.
Think of it: why should a newspaper or book be reliable?
Answer: because the publisher does not want to lose readers, which supposedly would be a consequence of publishing misleading information.
This (judging reliability according to market forces) relies on the hypothesis that readers would stop buying a newspaper or books from a publisher for lack of reliability. In general, this is false. Entire magazines are based on publishing not-so-verified-news, and find a strong readership. Entire publishing houses dwell in pseudoscience, and they too make a profit.
It also relies on the hypothesis that readers could detect wrong content. If I read a newspaper about events in Georgia (former USSR), I have little means to check what they say.