After reading many different articles and discussion boards, I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is an unreliable, biased, and grossly inaccurate source of information. In my essay, I argue how Wikipedia disseminates misinformation through the use of faulty sources and the presence of bias within the articles.
Personally, I used to use Wikipedia just to gather background information or to get a general overview of a topic. But, now, having studied the astonishing implications of using Wikipedia, I doubt I will ever go back to using that site. In Writing-140, we were taught different research techniques and different sources of information far more reliable and accurate than Wikipedia. In the future, I see myself using those sources, such as Proquest or Google Scholar, to find academic content.
I do not plan on contributing to the discussion boards simply because I do not consider myself an expert on any topic and do not find it suitable to publish my opinions or ideas on a public forum.
I can see your point discussing the inaccuracies found in WIkipedia. It's so easy for people to access the site as well because they pay search engines to be top results whenever someone uses Google, Bing, and the like. Do you think that WIkipedia can be "fixed" so to speak, or should the whole communal project be abandoned in favor of other websites? Is there anything that can make Wikipedia a better source of information?
ReplyDelete