Many of my teachers told me early in schooling that Wikipedia is not a credible source to get information from.During middle school and throughout i was always reminded by my teachers before an assignment to not use wikipedia as a source because wikipedia is accessible to anyone and any person can sign in and change informations even if its false. After reading the article “Wikipedia is Good for You?” by James P. Purdy i did change my mind on wikipedia, even though i cant use wikipedia as a source i can still use it to get some ideas or useful informations which is also important.

James P. Purdy explains to us that Wikipedia can be a good source in three different ways” Rather than a source to cite, it can be a source of 1 ideas 2 links to other texts and search terms”. Ideas When you begin a research-based writing project, read the Wikipedia article on your subject to get a sense of the various facets or angles you could write about. 2 links to other text we can use Wikipedia as a jumping-off point for other texts to consult for your analysis. According to Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy, content posted to papers must be verifiable—that is, it must be quoted (Bruns 114, “Wikipedia:Verifiability”), so articles contain bibliographies, as seen in figure 1. As seen in figure 2, they sometimes contain “further reading,” “external link,” or “see also” these lists always provide direct links to other sources. this shows that even though wikipedia is not a reliable source it can still be used for other benefits.

After reading the article ” Wikipedia is good for you?” by James Purdy i would consider wikipedia a community platform because even though its not a reliable source you can use it for many benefits like getting ideas for a topic and get ideas, find new sources through wikipedia and more just like in the article page 211 gill acknowledges wikipedias problem with accuracy but it was helpful for her in getting some background information. This can help many students who are lost get some ideas on what to do or what to search to get their answers for questions.

1. What were you told about Wikipedia in your early schooling? How has that changed after reading Purdy?

In my early schooling I was not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. I was told it was not reliable nor true to use. Those that contribute to the Wikipedia articles do not need to be experts or professionals, and incorrect information can seep in. However, even the Encyclopedia Britannica, a trusted source, has errors, and Purdy concludes that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as Britannica in a variety of science articles. However, Wikipedia is constantly changing, and it would be a hassle to cite from it, for the person that visits the same article link may read a completely different version! From reading Purdy’s opening statements and paragraphs, I understand that college level writing should involve more advanced sources, rather than a general encyclopedia, which includes the use of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia can be read and used in different ways.

1. What are some ways that Purdy explains Wikipedia can be a useful tool to you as a student and scholar? Describe at least two.

Wikipedia can help you see at a glance an outline for your research. The table of contents and headings can aid and provide ideas for your research paper. Additionally, Wikipedia has links citing the sources used for the information listed on their site. Therefore, you can look at such sources and evaluate for yourself if they are credible and how reliable they are for your research.

1. After reading about how Wikipedia works, would you consider it a community platform? For what reasons? Were you aware of the conversations taking place over every article edit?

I do consider Wikipedia as a community platform because it is available to the public for free, and those visiting the site can also contribute to it. I was not aware of the conversations regarding the edits. I used to think any random person could edit it and you would never know why or how. But now that I am aware, I read through some discussions and it was quite interesting. It helps me make my own judgement of how reliable the article is for my personal use, and it is interesting to see other people’s perspectives.

1. Early in schooling, I was told multiple times Wikipedia is not a reliable source to get information from. In high school, most of my English teachers reminded my classmates to not use Wikipedia because anyone can go on to Wikipedia to change information or write false information, so it was not a good source to use, especially on research papers. After reading Purdy’s essay I realized that even though Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, it can still be useful to students in many ways. I used to think Wikipedia was just a trap for students to fall into believing everything they read. But I learned that Wikipedia is a source where you can exchange knowledge.  

2. One of the ways Wikipedia can be a useful tool to me as a student and other scholars is that it can help generate ideas and findings of other links and texts. This is a very interesting way of how Wikipedia can help make my research stronger, it is almost like a gateway to all known service to generating different points of views, angles, and different argumentative points. Another way Wikipedia can be a useful tool is by how it provides sources that can be related to the topic you are researching. In college, students need to have sources that are written by professionals and reliable articles that give them accurate information. Wikipedia can also give sources that might be reliable.  

3. After reading about how Wikipedia works and the process guide of Wikipedia, I am surprised to say that I would consider it a community platform. That is because Wikipedia is a place where professionals or even just any individuals who do know about a topic, can write an article or their research, it’s open to anyone. I think that now Wikipedia should have policies and regulations to stop vandalism and prevent false information. I was not aware of the conversation taking place over every article edit, I rarely visit Wikipedia and I also didn’t know it contributes to revising and depend on each other to work to complete a task. I think it is interesting and fascinating because giving writers and authors the space to respond to other contributes and talk about why they made certain changes to me means that Wikipedia definitely is a community platform. 

1.In my early schooling days my teachers did not recommend us to use Wikipedia as a credible source as anyone can go and edit information on there. After reading “Wikipedia Is Good for You!?” by James P. Purdy, I understand now that Wiki doesn’t have to be used for citing but instead can help in many other different ways. I don’t think students should shy away from using the site, but knowing how to use it is crucial because it can lead to other useful resources. 

2. Different ways Purdy explains Wikipedia as being a useful tool to students is by using it as a source not to cite but to gain ideas. Purdy states “Looking at the table of contents and headings can help you view your topic from vantage points you might not otherwise consider..”.Checking out Wikipedia before starting a research-based writing project can help you get an insight into different elements you might write about. This can assist you in improving your research writing paper, which is a good option. Wikipedia can also be a helpful tool for revising. Purdy suggests that making a change to a wiki article based on one of your drafts can help “see how others respond and analyze those responses. In other words, give your idea a test drive with a public audience.” This is actually beneficial because it gives you information that you can use to revise your draft based on the feedback and responses you receive.

3. I would consider Wikipedia as a community platform because there are many editors who contribute to maintaining the site by creating new articles and revising older ones. I actually wasn’t aware of conversations that took place on Wiki which contributes even more to it being acknowledged as a community.  Before reading Purdy’s article I had not considered Wikipedia beneficial or even a community but seeing things from a different perspective it is much more than an online encyclopedia. Wiki reminds me of a big group project where volunteers fix a spelling mistake, remove false information, add something that was missing.

 

From my experience in high school, all my teachers told me not to use Wikipedia because it doesn’t have accurate information. According to the beginning of the article, James states that Wikipedia can help illustrate recursive revision based on idea development, textual production based on participation in a conversation rather than isolated thinking, and research-based on production rather than the only critique. I never reached to using Wikipedia therefore, after reading the article my mindset hasn’t changed. It’s a great internet source that has been around for years but I don’t think it’s completely accurate. I’m possibly just stubborn to admit that Wikipedia does provide interesting facts and information but I know that it is open participation for anyone which can be misleading. James explains that Wikipedia can be a great useful tool for students. For example, he states that Wikipedia is potentially useful for remembering and understanding some of the tasks that are frequently part of good research-based writing. This includes reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing. Also, he states that using Wikipedia is a good source of ideas. James adds that multiple aspects and angles from different people can give you a sense of what you might be writing about in the topic that you chose. That Wikipedia website includes table contents and headings that can give the writer/student guides and information into the ideas of what the topic can include. This can give you a sense of direction on how you want to pursue your research paper. I agree that these tools provided by Wikipedia are useful however, other websites can also do the same. After reading about how Wikipedia works, I still do not consider using it as a research platform source because I would rather only read facts and opinions from different people. It’s not a bad website to use but it wouldn’t be my first choice. In high school, I wasn’t aware that Wikipedia was a website that a person can start a conversation and edit until my teacher told us the reasons why he didn’t like the website. Overall, James did a good job explaining how using Wikipedia can be useful for students.

In my early schooling, I was told that Wikipedia is not a good website for understanding or learning anything because it can be changed by anyone, so its information is not always correct. Especially when I was doing a research paper, I shouldn’t go to Wikipedia to look up information or find evidence. However, after reading Purdy’s article about Wikipedia, I changed my mind about Wikipedia because I realized that Wikipedia can help me in other ways such as making sure what kind of information should be included in a topic, and that Wikipedia is not always wrong, and after checking the information on Wikipedia, I should also check the information elsewhere to make sure the information is correct. 

Purdy has said that Wikipedia can be a great source, not just a source to cite, but a source of ideas and search terms. Using Wikipedia as a source of ideas means that you get a sense of the multiple facets and perspectives you might write about when reading a Wikipedia article on your topic of writing. Purdy stated that “Many Wikipedia articles include a table of contents and headings that provide multiple lenses through which you might frame an argument (e.g., origins, history, economics, impact, production)” and “Looking at the table of contents and headings can help you view your topic from vantage points you might not otherwise consider and can give you directions to pursue and develop in your writing.” Reading Wikipedia articles can also help you generate search terms for finding sources in your school library’s catalog and online databases. Wikipedia can help you get some general background information to identify search terms for finding materials through the library, so you don’t have to waste time looking at something that may not be helpful in the library.

After reading Wikipedia works I would consider it a community platform because many different people are working on it, and they are all sharing their understanding and knowledge of a topic or event with each other. I was aware that there was a conversation taking place over every article edit since many people can edit their understanding of a topic on Wikipedia and others can add or remove it.

1. Carr’s argument on technology affecting us is definitely true on some points in regards as to whether having infinite knowledge is making us more stupid, I somewhat disagree with. I think technology definitely changed the way we read and write. Yet having access to this wealth of information can only help to propel us forward in the long run. I do agree that being able to simply type a question and receive an answer does take some work out of physically having to research a topic and perhaps even learning more through the research. Yet without the internet there would no doubt be a slew of people perhaps still researching topics that have already been solved perhaps by someone somewhere in another country.
2. As I stated before I do think that because the internet allows us most of the time to find an answer through a simple sentence search it takes out a lot of the research aspect as in looking up multiple sources perhaps confirming the research is concrete is the only work you have to do which again would only take a few more seconds of searching. Yet what I do like about the invention of the internet is that most of the time you can research said topic but perhaps that topic touched upon another aspect that you found interesting. Well instead of having to go back to the library and look up a new set of books you can just search away by typing a new sentence. Also, 90 percent of the time there is a video or auditoria explanation of what you are researching which can help dispel any uncertainties you have.
3. I think this has to do with looking for new aspects of certain questions. There was an experiment I remember seeing about whether bees can tell time and apparently scientists were so particular on the variable whether light was a factor whether the rotation of the earth was a factor whether geographical location was a factor hell they even jet lagged the bees to prove ultimately that bees can tell time. This type of research and planning I feel would only be possible with the internet as you can gather around people who share this common conundrum and explore the several variable as opposed to just having one singular person or group of people test out these situations. Technology helps us to constantly challenge what was originally perceived as fact and although sometimes it is good it also can be bad like with flat earthers, people who think global warming doesn’t exists, and 5G hysteria.
4. Honestly the internet is a blessing and curse. It can be likened to any sort of drug although a bit extreme what I mean is in moderation or with a purpose the internet is invaluable. Yet without a purpose or perhaps when just browsing social media or taking everything the internet puts without researching whether it is fact or fiction that’s when it becomes a curse. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a medium but when it begins to take over your everyday things to the point where it becomes an unhealthy obsession that’s obviously where you should begin to question what exactly are you doing. All in all, I think we have hit a point where no matter what the internet is here to stay so we should try and understand it better and teach ourselves and others how to properly use it.