Monday, April 28, 2008

Debate of Wikipedia

Nowadays, a lot of people like to search for information from the internet. It is especially true with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites that people usually use to find out some information. According to Parry (2008), “This website has grown into an immensely useful resource for background information on a wide range of scientific subjects, and can serve as quick reference for ant number of scientific facts. What is perhaps more important and useful, though, is the extent to which Wikipedia also preserves the debate and discourse around a particular subject” (para. 6). Some people also said Wikipedia has become a phenomenon since it was launched six years ago (Martin, 2008).

However, Wikipedia has bad ways for users because users can’t trust all information that is posted on this website, the information on the Wikipedia is not a good source for academic work, and this website makes students too lazy to search for information from the library.

The first bad reason for using Wikipedia is some information is incredible. Lengel (2006) said, “Wikipedia is an cyclopedia complied by the voluntary contributions of hundreds of writers and editors. Anyone can write an article and post it to the Wikipedia; anyone else can come along later and edit the article. It’s a kind of open, voluntary, work inprogress. As such, it’s the most up-to-date encyclopedia you’ll find” (para. 6). How can we believe this website if everyone can post and edit the information all the time? Some people may trust this information that may cause bad results in the future.

The second reason is the information on Wikipedia is not accepted by academic professors, because professors think some information in Wikipedia may be wrong. According to Bilodeau (2008), “Wikipedia is not a proper source for an academic work. Many professors would not accept an encyclopedia entry as a citation in a paper regardless of which encyclopedia it came from. Some might accept it as a source of a definition, perhaps, but in those cases, it would have to be an encyclopedia recognized in that field. Wikipedia, in a general sense, wouldn’t make the grade” (para. 8). Moreover, some schools ban access to this website in order to prohibit students from using it.

The third reason is this website makes students too lazy to their studying. Nowadays, almost every person has his/her own laptop, which is very convenient. When a teacher gives an assignment to students, they always find the information from the internet. It is especially from Wikipedia, which has a lot of information in various fields. They never find the answer from books in a library, or even find from their textbook. They may search information from an encyclopedia, not from the internet because nobody can guarantee all the information from the internet like the book.

In conclusion, people like to search for information from the internet. It is especially from Wikipedia. There are three bad effects to users from this website. First, users can’t believe all information from it because everyone can post and edit this website all the time. Second, most professors don’t accept the information from Wikipedia for academic work. Finally, this website make students too lazy to search for information from credible sources.

Bilodeau, E. (2008, January 14). Academic banning of Google and Wikipedia misguided. Cool Weblog. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.coolweblog.com/bilodeau/archives/003743.html

Lengel, J. (2006, February 07). Authorities. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12

Martin, N. (2008, January 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml

Parry, D. (2008, February 11). Wikipedia and the new curriculum. Science Progress. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/02/wikipedia-and-the-new-curriculum

No comments: