1 / 17

Is Wikipedia a Viable Research Source? Exploring Its Benefits and Limitations

This article discusses the viability of Wikipedia as a research source. It highlights its advantages, such as providing a foundational understanding of topics, being a convenient first step, and showcasing the vast quantity of articles. However, it also addresses concerns about accuracy and reliability, emphasizing the importance of verifying information through citations and peer discussions. Although Wikipedia can lead to misinformation, its constantly updated nature makes it a valuable starting point for researchers, prompting deeper exploration into reliable sources.

filia
Télécharger la présentation

Is Wikipedia a Viable Research Source? Exploring Its Benefits and Limitations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is Wikipedia a viable research source? By Taylor Seupel

  2. YES! IT IS! • Wikipedia is a great first step • It gives a basic understanding • Articles can be used • It’s convenient

  3. The Controversy

  4. The Reality • It’s Useful.

  5. Quantity Has Quality

  6. Number of Articles Over Years

  7. Traffic From Google

  8. How people research

  9. Editing a page • Anyone can do it! • Can lead to false information…

  10. Verifying Information: History

  11. Verifying Information: Talk • Peer Review • Discussion

  12. Verifying Information: Citations, Citations, Citations. • Look to the References

  13. Measuring Up • Other “reliable” sources

  14. Where do they get THEIR info? • Paid Professionals

  15. Handling New Information • Wikipedia is constantly updated • Encyclopedias are not

  16. Conclusions • It’s a good place to start • There are some issues

  17. Sources • http://graphjam.memebase.com/vote/page/1244/ • http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/exhibits.html • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia • http://pewresearch.org/pubs/460/wikipedia • http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html • http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100625/2351149966.shtml • http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html • http://www.iep.utm.edu/reliabil/ • http://gulnazahmad.hubpages.com/hub/-Primary-and-Secondary-Data • http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2006/12/26/writing-an-encyclopedia-article/

More Related