May 6 2011
Wikipedia, Friend or Foe
In the debate of whether or not the Internet is the savior modern society or is it the vehicle that will deliver man to his inevitable decline back to stone hammers and mud huts. The question arises regarding how much faith someone can place in a system that is as vulnerable and unstable as the World Wide Web. Personally I believe the infrastructure of the Internet is grossly primitive and will need many more years of development to convince me it has evolved into a credible, viable entity I can embrace as reliable and safe.
Develop your own argument based on the debate outcomes.
The outcome of our team debate produced typical answers and conjured the obvious questions about the credibility and accuracy of articles and information through out the Wikipedia site. Two primary points were made by the team against Wikipedia as a credible source. First and foremost, the site is able to be edited by anyone and everyone. Secondly there is always the fear of author credibility. Even though the majority of articles and on Wikipedia can be traced to legitimate sources there is always the possibility of unreliable users inputting inaccurate and misleading information.
Write a paper of no more than 1050 words supporting your argument by identifying criteria used to evaluate the credibility of sources of information. Wikipedia governed by monitors
For the sake of this assignment, I am defending the website Wikipedia whether or not the information on the site is reliable. Unfortunately, defending the position that anything on the Internet is 100% reliable is extremely difficult, especially a site like Wikipedia where the concept is anyone with a 4th grade education and access to the internet can edit information on the site. Wikipedia is, according to Lifestyles ( 2008), " exhaustively comprehensive but also corruptible because its content can be submitted by users who are not always...