http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer —> Primary source?
http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/for_faculty/faculty_find/wikipedia/
http://news.scotsman.com/education/Falling-exam--passes-blamed.4209408.jp
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/results.htm
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Possible candidates from which to pull opinions:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081113162148AAEfeLX
Take a look at the references:
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-colter
Praise:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/08/newmedia.comment
http://sequencefactory.standoutjobs.com/blog/2008/7/11/in-praise-of-wikipedia
Topics
Reliability
Vandalism
"Systemic bias"
-- Ommissions
Volenteers vs experts
Readability
Compared to other sources
Instances of being officially used as a source (court cases, etc.)
Other
Current events
--Instantaneous updates
--Anyone can update
--Anna Nicole Smith incident + other occurrences
--Time magazine's Person of the Year 2006
Ease of access
Provides Sources/references
Gets a bad rap from certain hardheaded folks
--Librarians
--Brittanica
--Anyone who's been detrimented by Wikipedia's system
Points
- If Wikipedia is used in conjunction with ANY other sources, all issues of reliability dissappear.
- Wikipedia is more reliable than the rest of the web, and therefore certainly no less valid. [Find stats on reliability of web sources in general; maybe other sources too.]
- If Wikipedia happens to have a good nugget of information or well-put phrase that one would like to use, and if referencing Wikipedia is taboo, one is stuck in a catch 22 between anti-plagarism and anti-Wikipedia rules.
- Banning Wikipedia but allowing other encyclopedias merely produces an unwarranted phobia for online sources.
- On college campuses, where one can expect to find extensive library, professorial, and other scholarly information, it may be reasonable to exclude encyclopedias as resources. However, in high school settings, where alternative resources are oftern not available, it is injudicious to deprive students of one of the most valuable tools within their grasp.
-Wikipedia is a tool, just like the rest of the internet. Like the rest of the internet, it can used both well an poorly. Banning Wikipedia would be like banning the internet. That is not a wise course of action; instead, students should simply be taught how to use Wikipedia wisely.
- Wikipedia's articles are redistributed all over the web, often without attribution. If Wikipedia is incorrect, dissallowing citation will not prevent students from using such info. It just distances the students, and the wrong info, further from checking the original source. Plus, students can check references and history on a Wikipedia page, which they cannot do elsewhere.
Quote by me
Critics might say:
Thus, other reference sources are vastly superior, since morons can't vandalize them.
