“Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise?” by Stacy Schiff, discusses the success Wikipedia.com, the online encyclopedia has achieved. Wikipedia is an online, interactive encyclopedia in which anyone with Internet access can contribute information. Technically, Wikipedia.com is classified as a non-profit organization in which it supports itself through aids and contributions (paragraph 3). It was created in 2001 and is now the most popular website, receiving “fourteen thousand hits per second” (paragraph 2).
With all of the success Wikipedia.com has achieved, one would think it would be considered a reputable source amongst teachers and researchers, worldwide. But, because everyday people have access to the composing of the Wiki entries, many teachers eradicate Wikipedia.com as a possible research tool for their students. The reason for this could be because of the rudimentary format the entries on Wikipedia.com are written. In the article, Schiff states, “The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss” (paragraph 32).
I can attest to Schiff’s previous statement. The majority of Wiki entries tend to lack formal writing principles and style. However, there have been certain topics I have written about and found the information provided in a Wiki entry to more useful to my essay. In fact, even Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam was amazed to see the details of his Wiki entry. “He was flabbergasted. . . .” Schiff informs readers in the article (paragraph 33).
I agree with you that Wikipedia does lack a certain official feel to it, but if I need to know something quickly, it is the first place I turn to. I would never use it as an official source for any kind of paper, but it does help. Sometimes though, like you said, Wikipedia provides even more useful information than a scholarly source. If I had to guess, I would say that is because the scholarly sources tend to involve a lot of analysis, and Wikipedia focuses a lot more on the plot.
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part with your essential assertion that Wikipedia is useful but unofficial. I have found it very useful in sating curiosity or providing ideas about what to research next, but I also always find myself constantly double-checking facts from Wikipedia against more reliable sources. The fact is that, while I find Wikipedia useful, I would never place my sole trust in the information I got from it.
ReplyDelete