Wikipedia - Part Two

Wikipedia, the biggest encyclopedia in human history, is a popular source mainly because people all over the world, scholars and students alike, love to contribute and interact. Whether it's a question of "French toast" or "German toast," or whether the Fig Newton cookie is really named after the town Newton, Massachusetts (118), people will not hesitate to add, delete or edit information that goes onto Wikipedia's site. It is also a form of social networking that allows unlimited interaction of Wikipedia users worldwide. "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world," (120). This interaction can be good and bad though. Some people who are genuinely intelligent and can write an article based on facts can be criticized by others, which undermines their intelligence and eventually their ego. For example, a woman known as JHK left Wikipedia because she felt that people did not respect the information in her articles because they were considered bias. She also felt that there was a lack of community within Wikipedia, which left her disheartened and "socially" isolated (127). This ultimately leads to another reason why people love Wikipedia: edit warring. People love to edit, a lot, which is why Wikipedia had to set a "Three changes per 24 hours" editing rule. Also, there is no size limit to what one can write in Wikipedia. Space is unlimited. The fifth reason we love Wikipedia is because we can be whoever we want to be as a user. From elite professors to average school kids, we can say that we are someone, when we are actually someone else. Who will ever really know except yourself? Ah the virtual world. In cyberspace, people can write what they want about anything, including themselves. Wikipedia is obliged to people writing and editing facts about themselves, yet people do it anyway. For example, in 2005, Joshua Gardner 'pretended' that he was Duke of Cleveland, which obvisouly didn't work out in the end because it was clearly a false identity (148). The editors of Wikipedia (whoever they may really be) would not allow him to put content up on the site (especially false content) about himself. "The worst thing to do is to edit yourself anonymously," (149). There is to be no autobiographies created on Wikipedia then.
With many controversial issues concerning Wikipedia, it is clear that it is not the most accurate and reliable source. According to Dalby, "The official, openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. It isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as if it were," (191). This, I believe, is most certainly true. There are way too many people with way too many opinions out there that can constantly argue and edit the pages that are known as Wikipedia. Yes, it is a very easy site to access thanks to Google, and it is very tempting to believe everything that is stated on the website. Yet after reading this book, we must question the validity of the information before we use it in our reasearch. Only true and honest research is worth doing and analyzing, therefore Wikipedia should not be a source through which all research is found. Granted, most of the information is true, but not entirely. That's like a teacher saying "It's okay to plagiarize some of your paper, but not all of it." It just doesn't cut it in the research field. If people are solely reliant on Wikipedia for information, they are definitely misinformed and will ultimately be doomed to falsehood. Although Wikipedia is a fascinating tool, it should not be used to build the entire house.