Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is a tool that people just can’t seem to agree on whether or not to trust as a real source of information. Many state that the site is full of incorrect information because “just anyone can put something on there.” However, others point out that the process to post an article on Wikipedia is actually quite difficult.
Two articles address this issue. The first, “Wikipedia: an Old Fashioned Corner of Truth on the Internet” by Charles Arthur, appeared in The Telegraph in January of 2016. Here Arthur advocates for Wikipedia stating that it is in fact a credible source even if the site does have some faults. The other article is “Wikipedia, a Professor’s Best Friend” written by Dariusz Jemielniak and published in October of 2014 in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Jemielniak writes to convince other professors that they should actively promote the use of Wikipedia in their classrooms- even as far as saying they should have their students contribute to the site. Both writers have similar purposes in wanting to display that Wikipedia is a credible source and respectable tool to use. Jemielniak is more likely than Arthur to change his readers’ minds about Wikipedia because he gives the best reason to
…show more content…
Jemielniak gives three strongly worded reasons as to why scholars dislike Wikipedia; he then continues to a more positive note as to how Wikipedia can be used as a teaching tool. Jemielniak goes as far as saying that “helping Wikipedia grow … is a moral duty of all those privileged enough to attend college” and “the ethical obligation is even greater on the professoriate than the student.” These statements are very strong on purpose in order to get the readers’ attention and call them to action; specifically the last one speaks directly to the audience of The Chronicle of Higher