Friday 11 November 2011

Wikipedia -- Using the Forbidden Resource

        Let's be honest, we have all used it. Type in any person, place, or thing into google and one of the first links will be for a wikipedia page on the subject. BUT we have all been told for the extent of our academic career that wikipedia is not a reliable resource. Nonetheless here I am in ALES204 making my own contribution to wikipedia. Through my experience of contributing to a wikipedia stub I realized why wikipedia should not be used as a reference for information and how it has the potential to be a great source of information if utilized properly. 

Retrieved November 11, 2011 from 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67755971@N07/6335425336/in/photostream/
         I have always been told that the information on wikipedia could come from someone who has no formal expertise on the subject but now I really understand that ANYONE can put ANYTHING on wikipedia. To start my assignment I created an account (no credentials necessary) and browsed through a list of stubs (a seemingly endless list) until I found one related to food that didn't have much information on it -- "Milk Substitutes". The current wiki page on milk substitutes contained only minimal information on the topic so I was able to find research from academic journals to add information regarding Lactose Intolerance, Manufacturing of Non-Dairy Products, Varieties and Brands such as Rice and Soy milk and other Milk Substitutes such as Breast Milk. I had done research before adding information to the wikipedia stub but it made me think about all the information on wikipedia that might not be from academic research. It brought to light the great importance of being vigilant when looking at information on wikipedia because it could very easily be from a false source.

         Wikipedia has the potential to be a great academic source of information. It is convenient to have an abundance of information in one place rather than searching numerous different sources. By properly referencing your sources you give the readers the opportunity to cross reference and ensure reliability. It is possible that most of the information on wikipedia is accurate, but it is the chance that it isn't that loses its' credibility in the academic society. I agree with my fellow classmate, Laura, that Wikipedia is appropriate for a quick sources of information but not for scientific articles. Perhaps in the future Wikipedia could require some sort of proof of expertise before editing, but then again is public access to edit the essence of Wikipedia

-K

*** Click here to see a screen shot of my wikipedia stub -- or even better just view the whole thing

3 comments:

  1. Great post! I liked how you talked about Wikipedia having the potential to be a academic source and what is the essence of Wikipedia.

    I mentioned you in my blog here: http://ales204briannecheng.blogspot.com/2011/11/wikipedia-stub.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree! With everything actually. It would be wonderful if wikipedia could become more credible with some sort of academic proof-reader but at the same time we will lose the public part of wiki - can't win! But it is still a wonderful thing.
    I added a link to your blog post in mine
    http://maureen-c-ales204.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that this assignment made me realize how easy it is to post ANYTHING on wikipedia-may not always be true, because anyone can change it, at any time.

    I think that public access is what makes wikipedia so popular. If people need and want a 100% factual source, they have to buy or refer to a real, credible encyclopedia.

    Great blog Kylie!

    ReplyDelete