Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source free essay sample

Is Wikipedia A Reliable Source In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source. Debating Wikipedia Almost everyone knows about Wikipedia. Heck, every time you use a search engine like Google, Wikipedia shows up as a source for information.Nicole Irving on the con side of the debate started out by saying â€Å"Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so what makes the information shared by anyone true? If anyone can edit it then people can also edit it to be wrong. Dwight Reed who debated on the pro side of Wikipedia shot back with â€Å"Do you consider Google to be a credible search engine? I contend that if you believe Google to be a credible search engine you have to also conclude Wikipedia is a credible source of information. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Google goes to great length to make your search relevant. They rank your results based upon the number of links to a particular source (Garfinkel, 2008, p. 4). In the Google search box if you type any noun (person, place, or thing) a Wikipedia article is the first or second result you get. What this means is that these Wikipedia articles have the most links to them than anything else on the internet. A lot of people must feel Wikipedia is credible enough to link to its pages. So while the academic and my fellow team mates on the con side of the table may say Wikipedia is not credible there seems to be enough people that believe it to be credible to make the best search engine on the planet always return a Wikipedia entry if a noun is searched.The question I pose again â€Å"Is Google a valid and credible search engine? † Do millions of people that link to Wikipedia that cause it to be the #1 or #2 result for most searches believe the data to be INVALID? I contend that some of the reasons so many believe Wikipedia information to be credible and valid is because it is credible and valid. The medium of the internet allows Wikipedi a to be a valid source. Thousands/millions of editors (reviewers) make sure it stays valid and credible. If the date was not â€Å"legally sound† why link to it?This is the same process peer reviewed sources use. They review the material for its validity. You may say, â€Å"Well, anyone can edit an article and put invalid information. † The other side of that is anyone and everyone can CORRECT an article, also, I work with a lot of small businesses and I have shared with them that a â€Å"thief is going to steal. † You all understand this phrase, if your intentions are too bad you are going to do bad things, if an editor/reviewer is â€Å"pro-life† but he has a review a â€Å"pro-abortion† article there could be some theft (bias) in the review.The police of potential reviewers/editors of Wikipedia articles will see this theft and in fuse justice (correct the article). Could a poorly edited article go unnoticed? Of course, have peered reviewed articles been deemed â€Å"bad†, of course. Ivy Leigh responded to Dwight Reed by saying â€Å"it does not matter whether Google is a valid and credible search engine because it is just that a search engine. It only gives us a way to access the information we are looking for. You stated, â€Å"If an editor/review is â€Å"pro-life† but he has a review a â€Å"pro-abortion† article there could be some theft (bias) in the review.The police of potential reviewers/editors of Wikipedia articles will see this theft and infuse justice â€Å"correct the article). Well, how many people have read and used that theft already in papers or articles before they could infuse justice, and what makes the police of potential reviewers/editors of Wikipedia creditable, they may have there own agenda. Michelle Douglas also responded to Dwight Reed with Google might be a valid search engine, but what about the instances where you Google the fact that a popular star has just died and the person is alive and well. You can’t believe everything just based on the company supplying the information. Why does the medium of the internet make it a valid source Rachel R. Wright pro Wikipedia can back with Wikipedia is definitely not an information source that anyone should â€Å"bet the farm on† to be 100% valid but isn’t that or couldn’t that be the case with nay source? For the most part, the general information that you research on Wikipedia, when compared to other more reliable sources, is usually accurate. That being said, there is reason to believe that there is room for being considered credible.Completely valid is another thing, but again, that could be the case with any source as there is always room for error. Dwight Reeds last stitch effort to bring is point home. What make Wikipedia a valid source is the thousands of internet websites that link to the data in Wikipedia causing articles from Google and other search engines to consistently rank Wikipedia articles a t the top of result list. Now, it is generally agreed that Wikipedia articles are reliable and useful information (Chesney, 2006). This is from research done of the quality of data on Wikipedia.I add my basic logic to it that millions of people consume the product of Wikipedia (information). If the product was consistently terrible, we Americans are quick to stop using that product. That is not the case with Wikipedia. The issue of free editing of articles is an issue but even in that â€Å"The error rate is not considerably higher than in comparable reference works† (Lewandoski Spree, 2001). Wikipedia realizes that the policy of free editing could be a big issue so they have a self monitoring process that is regarded as working well. It is easy to point out the prominent examples where articles were changed because of bias.The same could be pointed out abut other medium of information delivery also. Again, Wikipedia is reliable, credible, and valid source of research not because I say so but because the data has been studied determining the articles to be as reliable as other sources AND the millions consumers of the date â€Å"can’t be totally wrong. † All in all it was a good debate, it was fun, and everyone brought up some valid points on the props and cons on whether Wikipedia is a reliable source, but the burning question is still â€Å"to Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia, which is the question you will have to figure out for yourself.