In my formative years in school, I was instructed against using Wikipedia in any type of research-based writing because the website was considered a poor source given that it was open to editing and its information kept on changing. Moreover, I was reliably informed that Wikipedia contained opinions rather than facts. Therefore, the information in Wikipedia was either right or wrong since it is mostly individuals’ opinion open for editing and amendment. Based on the information, I did not consider Wikipedia as a credible source to be used or referred to in research-based writing.However, after reading Purdy, I have changed my understanding and opinion regarding the use of Wikipedia as a source or reference in research-based writing. I have realized that Wikipedia is a good source of information like any other reliable source and it only depends on how one uses it. In any case, Wikipedia is more aligned with the format used in research-based writing compared to other sources of information. Therefore, it is not right to say that Wikipedia cannot be used or should never be used as a source in research-based writing as we were informed in early schooling because some of the practices involved in successfully writing a Wikipedia article, including revising, sharing, reviewing, and conversing are also employed in writing research-based texts for college classes.

 

Purdy has explained various ways through which Wikipedia can be a useful tool to me as a student and scholar. First, Wikipedia can be used as a gateway to other texts for my research because its verifiability policy demands that materials posted to articles must be verifiable. Moreover, the website offers the names and direct links to other sources. In essence, such leads will be important to me when I have decided on a topic and I am searching for other sources to develop and support my thinking. In addition, I can use Wikipedia as a student and a scholar to crowdsource ideas. I could read Wikipedia articles related to my topic prior to writing, for instance, a research paper to acquire multiple perspectives or approaches that I might use to write the paper. Hence, Wikipedia articles offer multiple lenses which I can adopt to frame an argument.

 

After reading about how Wikipedia works, I will not consider it a community platform but a professional platform. Contrary to what is known or believed by many individuals that anybody can post or edit articles on Wikipedia whenever they wish, one has to conduct thorough research and have verifiable sources of information properly cited and referenced before writing or editing a Wikipedia article. The fact changes the idea that Wikipedia is a community platform because not all people in the community are capable of conducting thorough research and support their findings with evidence and opinions from other works as required by Wikipedia. I was not aware of the conversation taking place over every article edit. I simply thought that one only needed to open an article and add or remove some words without necessarily proving and supporting their arguments.

Growing up in a technological society where technology is the way of life and how we utilize it for resources, research purposes and the level of accuracy can be a bit confusing with so much information provided when surfing then internet.  I must admit,  that at time I find myself looking up information and clicking on the links in Wiki for guidance. As a kid I use to hear people joke during an argument about information and sarcastically they would say, “let me guess, your source is from wiki.” Meaning that Wikipedia was not always accurate. As a student, my teachers constantly reminded me not to use  Wikipedia because it was not a good resource and that some information was not accurate.  As explained in the article, “My premise for the first is that you are going to use Wikipedia as a source for writing assignments regardless of cautions against it, so it is more helpful to address ways to use it effectively than to ignore it (and ignoring it precludes some potentially beneficial uses of Wikipedia anyway).”  The rules are if you are going to use it regardless to the teachers advise, one should use it to our advantage. The article also explains that, Wipipedia is a good source and way of good writing practices.  As explained in the article  “Thus, this chapter proceeds with the assumption that it Wikipedia Is Good for You!? 207 is useful to consider Wikipedia as both a product (i.e., a source) and a representation of process (i.e., a guide to practices). It is good for you but one must proceed with caution.

As writers and researchers I understand the concerns that Wiki is not always a good source because it has changeability, and as stated in the article that we must be cautious when using wiki as a source. As a result, articles can display incorrect information. The explanation as to why teachers do not like Wikipedia is because the articles shared do not remain the same, anyone can  can write information on wiki without any educational background, therefore they believe that the information is not accurate. Another underlying issue  is that the articles are constantly changing and teachers feel that is not accurate.

Purdy explains the different ways that Wikipedia can be used as a tool to writing a research paper is by reading the information provided which can guide you into writing a good research project, one can make a change to the wiki article which can be beneficial to writing your research topic. It can also be a good tool to help us revise our work. Is WIKIPEDIA a good site I agree with the following quote, “I actually do think Wikipedia is an amazing thing. It is the first place I go when I’m looking for knowledge. Or when I want to create some.” —Stephen Colbert. This knowledge that he talks about is based on people constantly changing what is wrong about the information being shared.  It is a good source and after this article I will continue to use it as a way to guide me when writing my research topic.