The notion that much of academia is still uneasy about acknowledging wikipedia as a valid and acceptable source is understandable. It is relatively new and select details in the content may not be completely accurate, but what makes it different from an up and coming magazine? The exact thing that makes wiki unique, its thousands of user/editors, seems to be the problem with its credibility, but like any magazine, newspaper, or other media source, there will be typos, small gaps in logic, and maybe even a few falsities. The point is that wikipedia may have more(quantity) "experienced" editors than most established media sources. I mean, how often have you been dissatisfied with wiki or found an actual falsity? Or better yet, how many of you have seen vandalism ortried to vandalize a page on wikipedia? That stuff is changed back to normal within seconds.
From personal experience when researching my topic (and random searching/browsing), I encountered something in an article; it was an insult in bold words to a specific person that im sure 99% of users didnt know (ie CARL SMITH IS A F@G AND LIKES BALLS). By the time I said, "wtf" and refreshed, it was already gone. Thats wiki editors on top of things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment