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.
Day: April 29, 2021
Week 13: Wikipedia Controversy (Yailene Rodriguez)
1. In my early schooling, I was told never to use Wikipedia because the information there was written by anyone and there could be information that was incorrect. I was taught to always find news articles and .org pages instead because those were more reliable and were written by people whose job it was to find out information. I remember students in my class getting caught for using Wikipedia because they would copy word for word what was on the website. This was a bad use of the website because clearly the student was being lazy. Although I was told this I would always use Wikipedia because it was a good way to start learning about the topic I had to do research for a paper. So after reading this text by Purdy, I only feel more comforted that it is actually a smart idea to start research by using Wikipedia to get a summary about it.
2. One way that Purdy explains Wikipedia can be a useful tool is using it for ideas on the project. Since Wikipedia articles are written to be neutral, seeing all the sides of the story allows you to figure out which one you want. It this great to see all sides in one place without having to find each side in an article. Another way is to use it to get links to actual reliable sources. At the bottom of the page have a tab with all the references that they used and it saves time on looking for them. This is a method I use because sometimes it is hard to find websites about the topic you are looking for and that makes it so much easier.
3. After reading about how Wikipedia works, I would consider it a community platform because it is a place where multiple people share information about one source. Since the article can be changed every day by anyone it is a community platform. I was not aware of the conservation taking place over every article edit but I think that it’s good they have a system. It helps clear up mistakes and justify information.
Week 13: Wikipedia Controversy
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.
