The Role and Authenticity of Wikipedia - Essay Example

?Argumentative Essays (Media) INTRODUCTION It has been d that the role of media in context of the modern day scenario is becoming vital at a rapid pace; not only in the social context, but also in political, economic as well as educational fields. A large section of the people of the society move in parallel with the reports published in the online media as one of the most manifested and widely reached communication options. In this regard, the example of Wikipedia, an online information source, can be deemed as vital to understand the importance of media, especially in the field of research. It has been observed that Wikipedia is an internet based encyclopedia that works on the principle of collaborative editing. The source provides information to the internet users all over the world in different languages. Furthermore, analyses suggest that since its inception, this internet based encyclopedia have been providing more than 30 million articles in over 200 distinct languages to its users all around the world. However, the authenticity as well as the reliability of this source has been under the scanner, especially on the grounds of authenticity (Clark, “Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?”). THESIS STATEMENT This thesis will focus on assessing the role and the authenticity of the published information through the internet sites, taking the example of Wikipedia which has increasingly been criticized by the experts. This thesis will therefore present an argumentative essay which will adopt both supportive as well as criticizing stand on the authenticity and the role of Wikipedia in supporting the modern day research needs. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROLE AND AUTHENTICITY OF WIKIPEDIA The presence of online published sources is enhancing with every passing day in various fields including research; may be academic or business oriented. The ability of these sources to provide information in about every topic and in distinct languages has gathered popularity from millions of users all around the globe. Concerning these features, the position of Wikipedia can be considered as exemplary which further places it among the successful internet sites used to gather adequate information regarding a vivid range of topics and aspects. However, the biggest threat for the source in its successful operation has been the increasing criticism it faces on the basis of authenticity and reliability of the information published in comparison to other academic and peer-reviewed sources. This is owing to the fact that this internet source renders due significance to collaborative editing by engaging its users which is again not restricted on the basis of any particular eligibility criteria. In simple words, anyone who has the desire to share their knowledge regarding any topic can use Wikipedia as a platform; not only to publish new information, but also to edit the previously published data. Thus, high possibility exists for the data, published in Wikipedia in an editable form, to be exaggerated. The source does not demand any sort of expertise from the editors or neither has it set any sort of criteria for the users to express their knowledge through the source. Owing to its principle of being open for editing, the information provided by the source is often considered to be unreliable and unauthentic. Besides, the source can also be criticized on the basis of the fact that some of the information edited or provided by the users involves maximum plagiarism, i.e. the information published by unauthorized editors are often copied and pasted from other sources which again increases the risks of infringement of intellectual rights held by the publishers of those information. Consequentially, the information cannot be considered authentic as well as a quality work to support a research process, especially in an academic field. The source is also criticized due to the fact that much false information is being embedded in most of the articles published through Wikipedia and similar sources in the absence of any rules. This aspect also stands against the reputation of this source. Additionally, the absence of firm norms to allow only eligible users to edit the published data through Wikipedia or any other similar sources motivates users to manipulate information which further affects those users who prefer such sources to gather requisite information to support their objectives. (Hafner, “Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy”, Stross, “Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”, Williams Collage Libraries, “Should I use or cite Wikipedia? Probably not”; Meier, “Is Wikipedia a Credible Source for Undergraduate Economics Students?”). Apart from the above mentioned aspects, the information site is also criticized for the fact that since many people are involved in editing for a particular topic, the ultimate article lacks quality. Editors who have strong opinion regarding a particular topic, will also intend to dominate the entire argumentative flow which further hampers the quality of the information delivered to the users. Furthermore, there are strong arguments provided in various topics where there is no proper evidence or reference for the same. All this aspect contributes towards the negative performance of the information source and in turn affects its popularity among the users all over the world. Hence, owing to all the above mentioned negative factors involved with the source, the reliability, authenticity as well as validity of Wikipedia and similar other sources always remains under the scanner (Hafner, “Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy”, Stross, “Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”). ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ROLE AND AUTHENTICITY OF WIKIPEDIA From the above discussion, it is evident that there are certain severe negatives associated with that of the information provided by Wikipedia. Although on the contrary, the information source has certain positives or benefits to offer to the users all around the world. The successful operation of this internet site is also owing to the benefits it has been providing to the users. The management of the source believes that a collaborative effort of certain unknown but knowledgeable individuals will be effective in determining information for a particular topic in a wider extent. Also, the information source is rated as the ninth most visited sites in the internet. One of the most crucial drivers in this regard is the fact that the source provides information about almost every topic discussed in day to day life. It provides information in a detailed sense where users can understand about the nook and corner of a particular issue, whether related to science, history, geography, politics or economy or any other particular event. Since, many people are involved in editing the information of the source, which provides with wider and unbiased arguments on the topic. These enable users to get clear information about a particular topic which would further help them in their valuable studies or tasks. Apart from this, the information provided in this internet source is written in simple English and is also published in multiple languages, owing to which, users can easily understand the concept in a single reading. In addition to this, the fact that the information is being provided in various languages also enables the users to get a clearer understanding about a particular topic in their own language. All these aspects associated with the information source rewards it a leading position among the single largest encyclopedia of the world. Moreover, various studies conducted in regard to the accuracy and usefulness of the source, suggests that this internet site is by far the most popular learning destination of the world. This popularity of the site depicts that the users are highly benefitted from the information provided in the source which can be justified by repeated visits of the users. Moreover the company also periodically revises its strategies in regard to the “anyone can edit policy”, so that maximum reliability and authenticity of the information could be ensured. Hence, owing to these valuable and beneficial aspects, the presence of Wikipedia can be supported and justified (Clark, “Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?” Hafner, “Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy”, Stross, “Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source”). CONCLUSION From the overall analysis of the paper, it can be summarized that there are both positive as well as negative aspects associated with the presence of Wikipedia and similar other sources available online as an information hub. Throughout the paper it has been noted that the information provided by the source is not considered reliable and authentic owing to the fact that it is a collaborative effort of different editors with unknown expertise and knowledge. On the other hand, the source is also of considered valuable in regard to the aspect that it provides information in various topics in various distinct languages. Hence, due to these aspects, both supportive and criticism stand can be taken. Works Cited Clark, Dick. Wikipedia: What Is It Good For? Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2007. Web 2nd Jul. 2013. Hafner, Katie. Growing Wikipedia Refines Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy. The New York Times, 2006. Web 2nd Jul. 2013. Meier, Sam. Is Wikipedia a Credible Source for Undergraduate Economics Students? College of Business Administration, 2011. Web 2nd Jul. 2013. Stross, Randall. Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source. The New York Times, 2006. Web 2nd Jul. 2013. Williams Collage Libraries. Should I use or cite Wikipedia? Probably not. Home, 2013. Web 2nd Jul. 2013. Read More