Against Wikipedia

Against Wikipedia being used as a credible and valid source of information

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that allows anyone to write editorials at any time. Wikipedia has been critiqued for allowing its open editing policies. According to Rand (2010), the contributors lack objectivity and authority on the subject matter, which are two characteristics contributors are required to have in writing an article in Wikipedia. Spatt stated (2011), Wikipedia has been an object of adversity for many years because of its limited number of principles it follows. For example, “One important principle is neutrality; another is the faith that contributors are participating in a sincere and deliberate fashion,” commented Spatt (2011, p. 370). If anyone at any time can edit material how do we know that the person has wide range of knowledge of the content they are writing about. Spatt admitted, to validate credentials one needs to find out if the author can be trusted to have enough knowledge about the topic they are writing, with Wikipedia there is no one to validate the information provided (2011).

According to Shaw (2008), the leadership of Wikipedia acknowledges that anyone can alter the content and that information may not have been verified by someone who is qualified to give you accurate or reliable information. The only editors to the validation to the articles are other readers. There is posting on the website under “Ten Things you may not know about Wikipedia” that says “We don’t expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish” (Shaw, 2008). I did verify this information by going to the Wikipedia website and checking that this was really posted. How can they expect us to trust some of the material that is being written, when even the leaders have their doubts? So, the question to ask is why do people use Wikipedia...