After researching and being about to notice trends in Wikipedia articles, I am now less likely to rely on this source to attain information. Prior to the research, I was aware that the common public edited the material in the articles, but after looking at the discussion tab and history of edits made in each article, I found out that some changes were inaccurate and unnecessary. People revise articles only for the sake of participating in heated, needless debates that hardly contribute to the actual subject of the article. Additionally, there are no experts to justify the presented information as accurate, and the conversations detract from critical reasoning. Although the discussions of the Wikipedia system offer a collective environment of individual opinions, the lack of expertise and direction in the conversations make them controversial. In other words, self expression demonstrated by Wikipedia cannot symbolize knowledge and accountability.
Rather than participating in the discussions myself, I would focus more on improving the management of edits and revisions made in Wikipedia articles. I noticed that there are several trends that occur in the discussion sections. Users would change one section of the article, then another user would change the revision back to its original content. Other users would simply regurgitate information just to participate in the debate. Such unnecessary information could be deleted to prevent detraction from the article's focus. With more cited and reliable information and less opinionated contributions, Wikipedia has potential to become an efficient, resourceful database to showcase knowledge in various subject areas.
Furthermore, if I were to join the conversation, I would cite all sources and effectively utilize the electronic "signature" part of Wikipedia discussions to make myself responsible for my revisions. I would also include statistics and dependable facts to emphasize more authoritative facts over individualized opinions. Participating in the conversation would be an excellent opportunity to showcase my interpretation and knowledge, as well as receive feedback. Ultimately, I would attempt to balance both authoritative and individual opinion in my Wikipedia discussion entries.
I agree that Wikipedia has been executed improperly in terms of the discussion pages. Generally, they contain off-topic, even ignorant entries that distract readers from critical thinking about the discussion page's topic. Still, I am unsure how to manage these discussion pages properly so as to limit petty arguments while maintaining informed debate. How would you go about this?
ReplyDeleteI agree with maintaining some form of authority when adding to the discussion yourself, but I don't think there should be any type of individual opinion in the Wikipedia entries. Isn't it the goal of Wikipedia to portray the facts, not any bias? I would suggest editing and revising the articles in a way that removed any bias. Since you say that you will rely less on the website, I am curious as to if you will continue using it as a source of background information on a topic? After all, it is one of the first websites that pops up on the Google search engine. Do you think Google should implement something to avoid this?
ReplyDeleteI'm just curious.. which side did you support in your A5? Did you write in the support of Wikipedia or against it? I wrote in support of Wikipedia and I found that the discussion sections provided more than just useless debate. I came across multiple corrections and constructive comments.
ReplyDeleteI am also curious...(As CKM is) about which side you chose to write about...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Grove: According to my research, Wikipedia has attempted to implement plans to limit unnecessary and demeaning comments. Because the Wikipedia community is so large, however, this plan failed. Personally, I think the Wikipedia site should just remain as the unreliable, yet generalized, source of knowledge. However, the public should be informed about the inaccuracy of Wikipedia and the importance of discussion panels in articles. In this way, Wikipedia can be resourcefully utilized in expanding knowledge and creating individualized opinions.
ReplyDeleteDivG123: The goal of Wikipedia's articles is to portray unarguable facts, but the purpose of the discussion sections are to share opinions and critically reason out the opinions to come to an overall, collaborative census on an idea. I would definitely utilize the Wikipedia source to gain background knowledge. Then I would move onto further researching about the topic in more credible, factual resources. Also, I do not think Google moving the Wikipedia link on the search engine would be effective. People usually go from top to bottom on the list of search results, and the Wikipedia article can give a good start and generalized ideas about the subject.
CKM and CS1414: I chose the side that Wikipedia has negative contributions to critical reasoning. Although discussion sections and the article itself provides more than just debate, it lacks focus on the topic, an authoritative expert, and overall, legitimate credibility. Critical reasoning cannot be obtained when the facts are not reliable.