How much confidence did you have in the Wikipedia as a source of reliable information before reading the articles for this module? Did you change/modify that opinion or not?
I have always been told that Wikipedia is not a creditable website for the uses of reliable information. I have never been able to used Wikipedia as a source for any assignments in my university career. My professors would discredit my work if I were to use Wikipedia as a course of information. After reading the articles, my opinion has not changed. However there was several things I was not aware about. Firstly, I learned that Wikipedia “has become the worlds dominant educational resource, with over 4 million articles in English” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165). The site is ranks in the top ten internet sites in the world just below Facebook and search engine sites like Google” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165). The article further explains that the authors tend to “ignore historiography and scholarly monographs articles” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1165). I now further understand why my professors would not allow me to use this website for research. The article Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812, further changed my opinion on Wikipedia as it further explained who and how the articles are written. It also explains the “rules of the game that have spontaneously evolve on the electronic frontier” (Jensen R, 2012, p. 1166).
Nevertheless it is very evident while reading through these articles that Wikipedia “is fast becoming an important resource for news and for information” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). It is also evident while researching for information, as Wikipedia is generally the first major link on a search engine. My opinion was then backed up when reading the article, “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not? Assessing Completeness of Information”. This when authors Cindy royal, and Deepina Kapila state “ Although improved search engines such as Google facilitate access of knowledge across the Web, users then others. Wikipedia is one such site.” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). The article further states that “the Wikipedia is often criticized for the creditability of its user- generated posts, but completeness of information on the site has not previously been assessed. Although accuracy of information is important, that is not what this project is measuring” (Royal, C., and Kapila, D., 2009, 138). I am curious why the accuracy of information is not what the article is focusing.
My personal feeling aside, Wikipedia “allows for a collaboration on a mass scale, which is changing the institution of society” Tapscott and Williams, 2006: 10). The article, Wikinomics and its Discontents: a Critical Analysis of the Web 2.0 Business Manifestos, “promotes the combined cultural and economic significance of business models, both in terms of their rhetorical information as well as in terms of their impact on social and cultural theory”. Overall the website, has an overwhelming affect on today’s society and culture.
Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.
Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams (2006). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin.