Blog Post #4: Wikipedia

Wikipedia definitely has both its benefits and its drawbacks. For its benefits, Wikipedia is completely free of charge to access, it enables you to quickly find information on a topic, anybody can contribute or edit a page, and all references are listed at the bottom of the page. As for its drawbacks, although it can be a positive thing, allowing anybody and everybody to edit and contribute can lead to a number of issues. You never know the credibility of the contributor, and the information that is provided could be completely false. Finding Dulcinea actually provides an article stating 'The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia' (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html) -- and the #1 reason listed is because Wikipedia actually mentions in their about section, "We do not expect you to trust us." In my opinion, that right there speaks loudly about Wikipedia's credibility. There is also another article, from Best Colleges Online that lists the '25 Biggest Blunders in Wikipedia History (http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/) which includes false death reports, libel, and miscellaneous hoaxes and mistakes -- which shows exactly how inaccurate information found on Wikipedia can be. Although I am sure that crowd sourcing definitely helps reduce the amount of information by allowing others to edit mistakes, I do not feel that it could possibly prevent misinformation all together. I believe that while people can correct mistakes that they find on Wikipedia, people can also change correct information into wrong information, as well. As for possible alternatives for Wikipedia's information, I think that a good idea would be for them to still invite crowd sourcing -- but have the contributors submit their information in a form so that it could be reviewed by a professional in that topic's area (which would be completely new for Wikipedia since they do not pay professionals, and only rely on crowdsourcing.) I also believe that to increase participation, Wikipedia could perhaps offer awards and titles to people who contribute often.