Wikipedia is seen as both a good and a bad source. It can be a good source when there is reliable data that supports their claims. If someone posts something and his statement is supported by an expert in the thing he is arguing, there is a good chance that it would be a reliable source. Another thing that Wikipedia can be a good source of is "common knowledge." They have definitions and other things that most people will know. If, by chance, a person does not know for some reason, they could look it up on Wikipedia and it would probably be reliable data. Wikipedia has some good points, but it can also be seen as a bad source.
Wikipedia allows anyone to post anything on their website. This can cause problems when dealing with credible sources. It is easy to say that something is true, but it can be hard to actually prove it is true. That is what makes Wikipedia a "bad" source. It is because they can have random people saying random things. These "things" may or may not be true. The only way a person knows it is a credible source is if the person sites other credible sources in his paper. If someone is bias, they can write a completely false paper on Wikipedia. This is why Wikipedia can be bad and why college students probably should not be allowed to use it for their papers.
In the end, I believe that Wikipedia does provide some good things, but it mainly a unreliable source. It can help point a person in the right direction, but with all the bias people and people who just "think they are right," it is hard to be called a reliable source. There is not enough evidence in most papers to prove that the information provided can be trusted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment