By: Nearly Graduated Office Worker

Nearly Graduated Office Worker — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:58:11 +0000

This is a really interesting topic, and something’s that come up quite a few times in conversation lately. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, but I’m fully aware of the unreliability of the material on there. If I’m looking for some specific info regarding dates of events or names of people, or even the general explanation of some event, it’s an excellent source. And, as you said, it also links me to other sites that will get me more reliable information. The main problem is for the folks who aren’t discerning in their research — those of us (like my mother, for instance) who will take something that she reads online as the absolute truth. But as you already said, when you’re doing research, you always have to consider your sources–even when they’re published in a fancy, hard-cover book by a well-known author. What I think is good about Wikipedia is that many people are talking about its unreliability. Which means that many people are getting introduced to the idea that just because something is on the internet, doesn’t mean it should be taken at face value. What a concept! I know, duh, right? But for those of us who don’t quite understand the mantra “consider your sources,” all the talk about wikipedia seems like an excellent way to drive this concept home. I see thought bubbles forming over millions of heads: “if wikipedia isn’t reliable, then maybe other information sources (internet/television/radio) aren’t either…” Using wikipedia is not the question here, it’s knowing how to use any source that matters.

Comments on: Wikipedia Holds Unique Place in Higher Ed

By: Nearly Graduated Office Worker