Using Wikipedia As A Reliable Source English Language Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Wikipedia is a complimentary, Web-based, shared, multilingual encyclopedia project that is supported by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. These writings are the first words of the English Wikipedia describing and defining itself as a fine place as any other to start looking for an answer a question. "What is Wikipedia?" It's a free encyclopedia, the largest and the most popular website for reference in the world. Nearly more than 3.5 million articles that form the English-language in Wikipedia, those words are as a result the collective creation of users of the Wikipedia site, some are anonymous, some are not and some have been tweaked over and over. There are over 13 million other articles in Wikipedia and in about 250 other languages.

Wikipedia is not only a free encyclopedia but its also unique, The reason why the majority of people like this website and why they see it to be reliable and valid is because of many reasons one being that its written by anyone and also can be read by anyone not forgetting that this articles can also be edited by anyone. According to the website's statistician; more than 1.2 million have made changes to the Wikipedia articles and the least number of changes is 10 on these articles, thus the concept that the Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone has made it one of the largest encyclopedia in the human history with a yearly growth rate of 24% in articles of, therefore here we can see the freedom of speech. In addition, Wikipedia 17 million articles that are written in all languages including; English, German, French, Spanish and many other and also 270 languages are supported by Wikipedia. The magnitude of information collected from Wikipedia is really a lot and one cannot lack sufficient information, the articles, associated artwork, and the server host of Wikipedia store all the record details of articles that have been changed and the complimentary pages to discuss the editing concern related to each article. Furthermore many of us use Wikipedia to research for articles and answers to many of our questions, articles like scientific research articles, academic questions, answers and purposes and also Wikipedia provides our personal curiosity questions with their rightful and specific answers. This is because on Wikipedia the writers are often aggravated to represent their knowledge on that topic in a uniformly dependable way and the passion they have for that task can often create an amazing incorporation of coherent communication and expert knowledge.

However as much as 4,000 new articles in average are added to this site daily , nearly half of these articles are deleted on the same day because they lack value, accuracy and proper sourcing, so one has to get the three right in order to write an article on this site. The widespread use of this site has produced a backlash over the concerns of the site's verification and accuracy standards; the site has been damaged by deliberate misinformation, Wikipedia also faces limit of the copyright law, contract law and also confidential information, such ventures remain susceptible in this legal environment and yet we see that democracy is one aspect that should be practices in most of these countries, so why not in these articles? The Intellectual property rights pose some threats to Wiki-based ventures. Following the many years of stunning growth, in 2010 Wikipedia faced practical questions on how to solve the issues of acceptance and success. Due to this the growth of the site slowed down due to lack of enough articles and hence action was to be taken.

As the growth and expansion of the site slowed down in the United States and Europe, the manager of the groups held strategy sessions to stimulate the growth in the less industrial countries, women and the older people in the society also the ones with less technical knowledge. In addition there have been efforts to work with specialist and to include their contributed information on to the site. On the issue of adding intentional misinformation, Wikipedia has developed an ultimate editorial hierarchy where by volunteer administrators have been given the powers to prevent changes, edit or even remove to some particular articles. While most articles remain open to editing by anyone, certain articles that are hotly contested are now protected by the Wikipedia against any changes.

Having an experts' moderation system would defiantly change the way Wikipedia is today, one thing that got discussed above is that it would allow Wikipedia to be a reliable source. Another thing is that it would change the way we know Wikipedia for it is well known. Wikipedia became a popular website for the high growth rate in pages, people would go on Google and search for anything, and for most of the time Wikipedia would be the first link on the results page. The community had many things to include in the Wikipedia articles which made it the number one source of information for many people. People would look for current events and the latest political news in Wikipedia. However, having an experts' moderation system would change all that. If each expert's article would be examined by the board of experts this will slow the growth rate of Wikipedia. Wiki means quick or fast in Hawaiian, and if Wikipedia would give the purpose of its name by becoming a slow moderated encyclopedia, it would obviously lose its popularity. Another disadvantage of having such a system would be that Wikipedia will become just like any other moderate encyclopedia on the web. Although the information would be considered more neutral and creditable, however this will limit the information to the experts only while excluding the rest of the community.

My conclusion is that All in all, we can say that the current system of Wikipedia is a rapid growing, unreliable source of information, beneficial for those who seek fast information. Wikipedia provides one with the basic rhetorical elements, and these include the plot or the summary of the article, the external links of the article, all the casts that are involved in that article, and the awards that were awarded to individuals that were in that article. All the information that you will need is in Wikipedia, the information is well covered. On the other hand, an experts' moderated Wikipedia is one that would have a slow growth rate of articles and would be a more reliable source which can be used for scientific researches and for academic purposes. Personally I would not give up the current Wikipedia for a moderated one, as we cannot measure the benefits that those two would give back to the community in return. Even though they say that Wikipedia is not reliable in its information, the employed expertise that they have employed have ensured the accuracy in these information that are available in this site and visitors seem to still love how it simply works. This all goes back to the person using Wikipedia; would you trust the community to give you any information on what you are looking for? Somewhat, I do.


Insert Surname here: 1