May 25 - Wikipedia

Today's class was interesting because the accuracy of Wikipedia is a highly debated topic. When I first heard of the idea about four years ago, I scoffed at how unreliable it seemed. An encyclopedia that is publicly edited? Today's class shed some light on the inner workings of Wikipedia. I'm still wary about its use but I agreed wholeheartedly with the Professor and many other students that, in fact, Wikipedia is a great place to find sources and begin one's search. Even if a have a question regarding history or a hot button issue, Wikipedia is great for a short, bare-bones type of answer. I was definitely surprised to find that Encyclopedia Britannica is only slightly more accurate than Wikipedia. I was also surprised to find how highly regulated the site is, and that it's not in fact a "free for all" type of forum. However, bias does exist, not matter how small and the question that continues to be contested is - Is Wikipedia an academic source? I agree with most of our professors that it is unacceptable to site. Can one call a piece academic if the person writing it will not reveal his identity or expertise? Of course not. As we have learned - academic sources need to be back by a name and institution. But all in all, Wikipedia provides a good start.