The Legitimacy of Wikipedia

Harbinger of truth or inaccuracy?

My next post is based on an article I read off Wikipedia the other day. It is very interesting but I fear that readers will doubt the plausibility of the story just because I read it off Wikipedia. I made this post to sort out some of the confusion surrounding my favorite information source but in the end, it is truly up the reader whether or not they accept what is presented in front of them.

Besides being used as the number 1# copy and paste destination for lazy students everywhere, Wikipedia is the headquarters of an ever-growing and expansive universe of knowledge.

I like to think of Wikipedia as that one know-it-all person in your life that knows a little too much about everything yet is reliable to find out pretty much everything.

However, great power (since knowledge is power) comes with great…scrutiny! Yes Wikipedia is under constant fire from education dignitaries alike, citing the website is based on unofficial sources and has very little reliability.

This is just plain false.

Every article in the Wikipedia database is carefully monitored and checked for accurate sources and content. Administrators and fellow users alike work jointly to find and dispel any unauthorized or inaccurate¬† information. This makes the website an extremely refined and reliable source but why don’t others see it that way?

Wikipedia lends its name to many different topics. Anything and everything from comic books to space travel to ancient philosophers can be found in Wikipedia. Heck, it’s always one of the first results when you type something into the Google search bar. Having such a broad library of facts, figures, details and data creates numerous pockets for random strangers to place their own twist or interpretation into the page. However this is vastly blown up out of proportion because there are strict rules within posting that users must follow to maintain correctness.

Another possible reason people reject the notion of such a gargantuan online encyclopedia is that it is so popular and vulnerable to cyber attacks. The website is most definitely secure and the reason it is so popular is because it succeeds at performing its purpose: providing information on a specific topic.

I have found hours of intriguing insight into many different things thanks to Wikipedia. It simplifies key concepts within certain topics and also provides a broad range of information that completely envelops whatever it is you are looking for.

The simple truth is that for the overwhelming majority of the time, Wikipedia is more legitimate than the other ungainly websites you might find on the internet. Why the education system still refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia’s hard-earned credibility is beyond me. Hopefully one day they will see the light.

 

Advertisements

About JP Feed

Welcome to the feed. My name is JP. The JP Feed is designed as a host to a league of stories, thoughts, and wonders from the minds of anyone that either is just perusing through or serious readers that want their voice to be heard. Anything from poetry to art to just humorous anecdotes is highly encouraged. Here our main goal is to satiate our hunger for knowledge and ideas.

Posted on January 11, 2012, in Web and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Academia rejects Wikipedia because of their elitist attitude towards the common man. They have to protect their turf. They get paid to be the so-called experts, so when people find out a collection of common people know as much or more, they lose credibility. Period. Academia didn’t expose the documents used in Dan Rather’s 60 minutes expose on George Bush as false. It was a guy with a little knowledge sitting in his underwear watching the show that proved the report wrong. The so-called “academic experts” the show cited to validate the report were wrong. This is just one example of many of the so-called “academic experts” being wrong and the common man being right. That is why academia rejects it. It makes them look like the elitist, egg-headed fools they really are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: