After doing a little research on the controversial "encyclopedia"
Wikipedia, I have discovered something more beneficial than the articles themselves. I used to search a topic on google knowing that Wikipedia would provide a concise and clear article--something upon which to grasp the subject-- and immediately understand much of the topic. From there, I would search more in-depth authoritative sources for a better understanding of controversies or opinions. For example, when studying the Watts Riots,
Wikipedia was extremely useful in finding out the facts of the riots (how long it lasted, how much damage was done, etc.), but when it came down to researching the controversy, Proquest provided primary and authoritative sources through which I could gain a more comprehensive, well-rounded view of the issue.
However, after learning about the different functions of
Wikipedia, the discussion tab has provided me with an entirely new method of research. I will expand my use of the website to reading these discussion threads, allowing me to see many sides of the issue. This will be especially helpful in finding counterarguments and arguments to discuss in my future papers. I do not think I will join in on the discussion unless there is something that stands out to me as a necessary correction--I am not one to often contribute my own opinions to discussion. I have, however, expanded my view of
Wikipedia, and am more likely to rely on it for future research.
Using the discussion pages to find counterarguments is a fascinating idea; they likely do contain at least a few counterarguments with a logical basis. However, I have found most of the discussion pages to be littered with profanity and generally unfocused arguments. Do you think there is a better way that Wikipedia could facilitate critical debate?
ReplyDeleteI actually used Wikipedia in much of the same way as you did. Use it as a source of background information and then use other primary sources to cite in my essays. However, I have noticed that a user might remove a piece of information in an entry, and another user might add that information again. Do you believe that this is effective in the long run? Especially because for any regulation to be fool-proof, it needs to occur all the time? Moreover, I share your same view on joining in the discussion. Even if we, as college students, are absolutely certain about specific topics, we shouldn't participate until we have years of experience and research behind us.
ReplyDeleteI think your approach to utilizing Wikipedia for research would be the most effective. One should view not only the article itself, but the discussion and debates that occur with the mass revising and editing. I personally did not notice the discussion or the history tab until this assignment, and it is likely that a large portion of the public is not aware of those resources. What method can Wikipedia use to publicize their discussion and history sections to improve their accuracy and reliability?
ReplyDeleteAll-
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there are issues with Wikipedia, such as profanity or people reposting incorrect comments. However, as with any online website, we must use our judgment (AKA CRITICAL REASONING) to decipher what is right and what is wrong. Also, I do believe Wikipedia should advertise the discussion section...or at least make it more noticeable.