Should Wikipedia be used as a scholarly source?
-The answer is "not really". Its not a flat out NO, but it is a "not really" answer. The more straight forward facts that the entry has, generally means its actually pretty reliable because the numbers or facts are just copy-pasted from a website into Wikipedia. The more arguments, concepts, ideas, anything that isn't a black and white fact should be seen with some skepticism before accepting the entries claim as factual.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this source?
-I think the greatest strength of Wikipedia is the magnitude of available information in such a small place. There are millions and millions of articles in over a hundred different languages. I can honestly say I don't think there is this much potential knowledge anywhere else on the web, or in the world. There is just so much info just waiting to be learned that its somewhat humbling. The greatest weakness of this information smorgasbord is that any schmuck with a computer can post something and have it be misconstrued as fact when it is far from the truth. So ironically, the same feature that makes it great, the amount of information, is also its greatest weakness in that you as the reader have to comb through all the information and do research on the citations to make sure what your reading is legitimate or not.
What do these strengths and weaknesses tell us about the potential effects of technology on American culture?
-This may be somewhat of an un-politically correct answer, but here it goes. People today, rich or poor, smart or stupid, have pretty much the same access to information. Years before, it was only the rich that had access to information. Not all of them smart, however it was only the smart and rich ones that added to the knowledge bank. Today, irregardless of your financial background, you have access to more information that ever before in recorded history, however there is no teacher to help guide and steer the student, there just becomes a jumble of information that is not properly understood. What I'm trying to say is that people will rely too much on immediate information which they will accept as pure and utter truth, and people will actually learn less from half-truths and facts from more sources and more topics than they would if they learned correctly and absolutely about less sources and topics. This technology is a phrase, making us dumber, not smarter.
What did I learn? What will I take away?
-Well actually I learned that Wikipedia is actually a little more credible than I had thought. In 2004, I was a senior in highschool and Wikipedia had very rapidly burst onto the scene. We didn't know then that most of the information was bullshit, and I remember we had a quiz and most of us took the info from the entry and regurgitated it on the quiz. We all failed. The only kid who didn't fail actually read the book while we tried to take a short cut. After that I have always taken Wiki entries with a grain of salt. My auditing however showed me that at least in some articles maintained by competent contributors, the information is more or less correct. Writing research papers I would never, ever, ever, use any information from Wikipedia even if I made up the citation from a real book, the info itself is somewhat tainted. However if you're looking for some quick answers or if your having an argument with a buddy, the site is great. Overall, Wikipedia is more real than I had previously thought, however there is too much room for contributor error and bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment