Wikipedia-a free encyclopedia you can edit.
On first glance, Internet sites such as Wikipedia and TWiki seem like the easiest and fastest way to find answers to most any question. However, because of the very nature of wiki sites, the content of some subjects is questionable at best.
As Wikipedia states on its own site, it is a collaborative site from volunteers around the world; anyone can edit its content. It is also one of the most used references on the web today. But how much of the information can we actually trust?
Recently, I went online to look up the definition of the word “ombudsman.” I immediately chose Wikipedia from the search list because it gave the simplest answer possible. A few of my friends and I thought it would be funny to see if we could actually edit something on the page. So, I edited a portion adding, “The first ombudsman in Australia was a kangaroo.” Not very funny, I know. But it was a laugh to refresh the page and see the sentence still there.
After almost two weeks, the sentence finally disappeared. So in lies the problem; students always ask why Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in a research paper. The answer, as I displayed, is the content is a jump start but not always the most reliable source. If I can change it anyone can.
TWiki-another online information source
A wiki project like TWiki, although a unique way to share knowledge on common interests and communicate on the web, also has some drawbacks. Perhaps not as user friendly for searching like Wikipedia and providing less information and a narrower range of topics, TWiki is not necessarily the best place to find a quick answer. I struggled to understand how the site even worked and where to begin my search.
However, in order to edit you had to become a member with a username and password, which is not required by Wikipedia. So maybe the content is slightly more reliable because those of us that want to “play around” won’t take the time to go through the registration process. However, Wikipedia does try to ensure its content is accurate by asking for a list of resources to verify the information provided for each entry. Some entries cannot be edited at all.
Overall, instant gratification for nagging questions or quick research is most easily and efficiently met by Wikipedia. I wouldn’t necessarily put money on the information, but it usually leads me in the right direction.
I also chose to look at wiki sites for my blog. I did not choose Wikipedia but did choose TWiki. Similarly, I had difficulties trying to understand the site and how to use it. Requiring individuals to register and be a member in order to use the site may help cut down on issues of validity throughout the site, but I found the site to be confusing and I am not sure that I would have the patience to try to navigate it.
For me, Wikipedia has always fascinated me. I feel like I could find the answer to anything very quickly and easily. In fact, I was often frustrated that the site could never be used as a source. However, as I have learned more about the site, it is clear as to why this site may not be a reliable source. The fact that anyone can make changes could cause major problems in validity – as you demonstrated by editing one of the pages yourself. While I will probably still continue to use Wikipedia when I have random, nagging questions, I will be more skeptical of the information it provides.
By: jamiesedge on January 28, 2009
at 11:53 pm
I feel like Wikipedia is the google of encyclopedias. This being said, I agree with this post in that it is fast and easy, which is exactly what people want from web 2.0. This does have a questionable source of information but then again so does any blog too. This post however puts a lot of weight in the instant gratification of Wikipedia over Twiki while seemingly sidestepping the stronger validity of the later. Most professors do not prefer sources from Wikipedia, and if people, such as yourself, are messing with the definitions found on this site how can anyone feel good about what they learn there? I think it is worth the time to register to Twiki because after you do it acts basically the same as Wikipedia, and you have better peace of mind knowing your results are potentially more accurate.
By: chasewolf on January 29, 2009
at 5:10 am
I guess I am just preaching to the choir as well. While Wikipedia is something that is very useful, it does need to be taken at face value. You cannot go there and just assume that the information is correct. Anyone can edit it, and you should check the other sources at the bottom of the page to verify what is located in the text. But as more and more people begin to use it, I think it will begin to develop more and more and become an even more useful and reliable too.
Twiki, I had never heard of, and Jennifer was right on here. You have to join it to play around with it, which most of us dont want to spend time doing. It was very complicated, and even the home page seems kind of a lot to handle. If its alright with everybody, I’ll stick with the interface that I’m familiar with and is easy to use, and be sure to verify information from Wikipedia or use it as a stepping stone to find preliminary information to get my research started.
By: ryanchell8 on January 29, 2009
at 6:44 pm
I have to agree with the comments made by my classmates. Wikipedia is not entirely reliable, but its an easy to use source, and has an incredibly wide range of information. It’s not what I would look to for a scholarly paper, but for those inane, nagging questions that sometimes pop into my head, it’s a pretty efficient and convenient tool.
I also found Twiki very confusing – I toyed around on the homepage for several minutes and still couldn’t really figure the site out. It seemed to me like too much trouble for results that still have doubtful validity – simply requiring registration doesn’t ensure accurate information. In short, I’ll stick with Wikipedia, which most of us know not to take as gospel.
By: lauradav on January 29, 2009
at 9:45 pm
Hi Jen,
I agree with you on your insights about Wikipedia and Twiki. Wikipedia is a great resource for instant gratification when searching for information even if that information isn’t always reliable. Almost every day I use Wikipedia to look up something inane. Take today for instance, my search topics ranged from A-Rod’s marital status to Crown Royal whisky. Wikipedia is easy to use, but I certainly don’t use it as a scholarly source for research papers. Though I must admit I sometimes use it as a starting point for background information. On the other hand, I have never heard of Twiki and was interested in exploring the website. Like you, I had trouble understanding how to actually use the website. It seemed confusing. Of course, if registration is required that may be why the website is difficult to navigate. The registration process may make the information more reliable as it might deter users from commenting about the such things as the kangaroo ombudsman you mentioned.
By: memenner on January 30, 2009
at 12:53 am
Wikipedia is a great tool to use for a brief overview of topics or to look up a quick definition. However, as mentioned before its reliability is questionable to say the least. I’ve used Wikipedia countless times and on most occasions I have found it to be highly useful. There have been times though when I have come across information that isn’t quite correct. It’s definitely not a website that I would encourage to be used to gain in-depth research on a topic. For a brief overview or a quick look-up of a definition it’s a great website to use.
Before the Alexander article I had never heard of Twiki. Although I can see how it could be a rather useful website, its jumbled home page just seemed confusing. I feel like there are several other websites that are easier to use and more useful than Twiki.
By: adamdwosk on January 30, 2009
at 2:51 am
First off, I could totally see you messing around with Wikipedia.
I chose to look at Wikipedia as well in my search. I think by now it is common knowledge to know that pretty much anyone with a computer could change something on the site. It is good to know that they did eventually change what you wrote. In that span of 2 weeks however, someone could have relied on that source and been given the wrong information. I think it is good to reinforce to students not to use this site as a source because it can be misleading. This is just one of the many sites teachers have to be aware of and reinforce students not to site from.
Twiki did seem a little more credible because you had to sign in and people who took the time to do this would probably provide valid information. At the same time though there should still be a bit of precaution, and one might want to look at additional resources to confirm the information is correct. Overall though as a starting point or just a quick reference guide, Wikipedia allows for easy access to a lot of information.
By: staceybaugher on January 30, 2009
at 3:53 am