Wikipedia, though it can be changed, is monitored by credible people who know about the subject. If someone adds a false statement ,though it will be there for a little while and maybe a few will see it, the monitors will change it. All information on Wikipedia has links to where it came from and isn't biased. If a statement is biased once again, the monitors will reword it.
Typically, a textbook is a combination of other textbooks. Each "new" edition isn't really new at all. A textbook can tend to have basic coverage on certain subjects. The Wounded Knee Massacre ,in a typical textbook, states that someone fired a shot and then killing broke out. However, the Wikipedia article gives eyewitness accounts from both sides.
I feel Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source to get a general idea on a subject. However since at times you may be looking at an article that was edited and hasn't been reviewed yet, it may be wise to use the links they provide as a more concrete source.
I agree with your claim that we should use the links as a more reliable source. The most convincing was where you provided evidence about why textbooks cannot compare to Wikipedia (from a educational standpoint).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post in that internet research such as Wikipedia can be just as reliable as textbooks. The most convincing part in your argument was the "Wounded Knee Massacre" because it serves as an example to back up your information.
ReplyDelete