Wikipedia is unfairly targeted as a poor resource. It's probably one of the best example of what the Internet, software, and people can achieve. The quality of the articles on subjects such as history and science is nothing short of excellent.
As with any resource there are problems with Wikipedia. There are problems with bias, references, and vandalism but I would say certainly less so that newspapers.
Wikipedia changes its problems into its strengths in many places. Article disputes can often be some of the most valuable parts of an entry since you get to see first hand the tension between different opinions on a subject on the discussions tab on most articles.
Common news stories involve celebrities complaining articles are edited with lies. We should thank newspapers for highlighting good practice when it comes to reading articles and to check references. There is no absolute truth in any information yet when used properly, Wikipedia comes very close.
The real reason Wikipedia gets a bad press is because it's the best example out of just how disruptive things can get for journalists and professional writers. They concentrate on its important problems in an attempt to divert attention away from Wikipedia's overall value. The fact it gets criticism comparing it to perfection says a lot.
0 comments:
Post a Comment