November 26, 2012
Week 2: Writing an Argument based on LT Wikipedia Debate
The topic of discussion in week two learning team A was a debate of if Wikipedia was a creditable and valid source of information. The debate consisted of the team member’s previous experience using Wikipedia for research purposes and the general overview of its information. My take on the matter and still is that Wikipedia is not considered a creditable or valid source of information. By further reading into the paper, facts and information are is provided as to why an individual should not considered Wikipedia as creditable or a valid source of information. Wikipedia’s Debate
Over the last week, Learning Team A: debated if information posted on the website Wikipedia is a creditable and valid source of information. Multiple people within the team thought that Wikipedia was not a valid source but considered it as a stepping-stone for further research. In a post by John Johnson (personal communication, November 19, 2012) I personally think that Wikipedia should be a credible source. Even though just anyone can make changes to page sources. John gave credit to her findings from previous experience and to an Internet video. In the Internet video, Wales (2006) states “In 1962, Charles Van Doren, who was later a senior editor of Britannica, said the ideal encyclopedia should be radical – it should stop being safe. However, if you know anything about the history of Britannica since 1962, it was anything but radical: still a very completely safe, stodgy type of encyclopedia. Wikipedia, on the other hand, begins with a very radical idea, and that is for all us to imagine a world in which every single person on the plant is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” Although Wales and John agree that Wikipedia is a creditable source, several others believe that for educational...