Is Wikipedia just as reliable as a textbook? Could Wikipedia , at times, be more reliable than a textbook? In my opinion the answer is yes. When Googling a topic for research the first thing that appears is always Wikipedia. Wikipedia is known for being unreliable because it's believed "anyone" can edit it as they please. However, that's not entirely true.
Wikipedia, though it can be change is monitored by credible people who know about the subject. If someone adds a false statement, it may be there for a little while and maybe a few will see it, but 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 revise 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. in a typical textbook for example, a history book chapter on The Wounded Knee Massacre 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 and is a great tool 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment