Wikipedia as a Reliable Source Essay

Words: 930
Pages: 4

Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).

Its name comes from the derivatives of two words. Wiki, from “the Hawaiian word Wikiwiki meaning
…show more content…
Often Vandals will make major factual points and then place small falsehoods within those facts in an effort to not be discovered. Even with vandalism being accounted for it can be considered a small problem. The magazine Nature, compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica and noted the accuracy of specified articles was comparable (Giles, 2005).

The more relevant issue of Impartiality has to do with the motivations of the source. The University of North Texas edited over 700 Wikipedia articles on Texas history to add links to their own university resources in an organized effort to increase traffic to these resources (Beldin 2008).

In an effort to remain even toned Wikipedians are urged to write dispassionately about the topics in which they contribute (Logan, D.W. p2).

Scholarly journals for all their verifications and accuracy have a major flaw, currency. It takes time to verify sources and look for corroborating evidence and draw conclusions. While Wikipedia can be updated instantly and frequently this speed and inherent update-ability comes at a cost. The cost is perspective and depth of understanding. History books have a higher level of accuracy than daily newspapers. The same can be said when comparing peer reviewed journals and Wikipedia.

In summation I think there are some great positive elements to Wikipedia. While I don’t think that there is a sufficient level of