Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a valuable research tool for university students
How do I do my research: Online source
Firstly, I opened Google Search Engine and printed there the key words: Wikipedia – valuable – research. Then I used related terms as reliable, credible, source. My next step was to read background information on different sites and look for main ideas and issues being discussed, the terminology is being used. I built my statements: 1) Wikipedia AND credibility; 2) Value n5 Wikipedia; 3)Wikipedia AND credible OR valuable OR reliable OR trustworthy AND source OR resource. I used the sites of different universities, because I consider them as the most suitable and credible. The main reason why Wikipedia isn't a valuable research tool is: anyone who wants can post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration.
How do I do my research: Offline source
To start with, I should find some articles on the following topic. First source I found is the article of Thomas Chesney, 2006. “An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility,” First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (November), where he states that “Wikipedia hasn't got ‘high’ credibility, but it certainly is not ‘low’”. His survey shows that 13 percent of Wikipedia’s articles have errors. Then I searched for another article to have a wider view on this theme. I took a look at the work of Magnus, P.D., Assistant Professor at the University at Albany, (2008), “Early response to false claims in Wikipedia” ; First Monday, 13(9). There he points that Wikipedia is a reliable research tool because even if there are some inaccuracies they are being deleted within 3 hours or less.
How do I do my research: Online source
Firstly, I opened Google Search Engine and printed there the key words: Wikipedia – valuable – research. Then I used related terms as reliable, credible, source. My next step was to read background information on different sites and look for main ideas and issues being discussed, the terminology is being used. I built my statements: 1) Wikipedia AND credibility; 2) Value n5 Wikipedia; 3)Wikipedia AND credible OR valuable OR reliable OR trustworthy AND source OR resource. I used the sites of different universities, because I consider them as the most suitable and credible. The main reason why Wikipedia isn't a valuable research tool is: anyone who wants can post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration.
How do I do my research: Offline source
To start with, I should find some articles on the following topic. First source I found is the article of Thomas Chesney, 2006. “An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility,” First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (November), where he states that “Wikipedia hasn't got ‘high’ credibility, but it certainly is not ‘low’”. His survey shows that 13 percent of Wikipedia’s articles have errors. Then I searched for another article to have a wider view on this theme. I took a look at the work of Magnus, P.D., Assistant Professor at the University at Albany, (2008), “Early response to false claims in Wikipedia” ; First Monday, 13(9). There he points that Wikipedia is a reliable research tool because even if there are some inaccuracies they are being deleted within 3 hours or less.