ipl-logo

The Credibility Of Wikipedia

730 Words3 Pages

Written as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is web based and is questioned on its credibility due to its sources. Written by Randall Stross “Anonymous Source Is Not The Same As Open Source,” contained in Practical Argument, is an essay about Wikipedia and the articles it contains. The credibility of Wikipedia is called into question due to the ability of anyone being able to make changes in its articles. This leaves the question open on how reliable the site actually is and whether or not it is truthfully an open source site. As there is a vast difference between an anonymous source and open source, disagreements are always occurring as to the reliability of any article contained within the site. With the use of logos, Stross points out the …show more content…

Stross questioned Wales on the difference in the editing practices between Brittanica and Wikipedia. The editing process between the two encyclopedia sites is vast in difference. Brittanica only has a few people, with credentials, who contribute to the articles contained within it. As well as, only a few editors to check the work before completion. After it has been reviewed and approved by the editors’ that’s it. The article is considered completed and final. By contrast, most Wikipedia articles are constantly being contributed to and edited. A contributor can write the article and have numerous people fine tuning it. Wales himself has stated that he doesn’t always recognize the numerous contributors that are identified when they make the changes. However, very few articles are, in a sense, protected from malicious intents of users on the site. To help counteract these users every new user must wait four days before being allowed to make changes to a protected article. If a contributor is looking to cause harm or input false information in an article they now have to wait the four days. To prevent users from creating false information through a new article, anonymous users are no longer allowed to create any new …show more content…

At least that is according to Jim Bates who oversees a website that contains tens of thousands of open-source sites. Stross uses Bates as an example to somewhat explain the difference between open-source and anonymous source. Open-source sites has one person that takes responsibility for the project or site, such as Brittanica. In this instance the person who contributed to the article and/or edited it are identified. In contrast, Wikipedia is more of an anonymous source site. Each article is constantly edited and changed but no one is absolutely required to identify themselves. The contributor can just use their I.P. address as their name it doesn’t matter if they have the credibility to make the

More about The Credibility Of Wikipedia

    Open Document