Its as easy as 1,2,3???
First of, I have been told by many teachers that it is completely ok to site wikipedia.com for any use in a project or presentation that I have delievered in the past few years. After this weeks readings, I do not think I will ever site this website again. I think that it is a very knowlegdable website to START off a project with to get some ideas and maybe have a little backgroud information before you dive into the topic of choice, but now by all means, I do not think this source is credible.
I too, had a very hard time coming up with a hobby or a skill that I was good enough in to give my two cents toward. Many topics that I felt I knew what I was talking about such as iTunes, Dancing, Softball, or even my good friend Facebook, there were already paragraphs upon paragraphs describing things I had never even heard of, which was rather disappointing. However, one of my passions is my national sorority that I am currently in and I feel as though I know everything inside and out so I took a look at that website. As I was reading through the webpage, I did feel as though the site was credible, however all I had to do was click on edit and I could change WHATEVER! Also, being that my topic probably isn't in high demand on Wikipedia, my changes could be there for days, which is a little disturbing.
However, as I clicked edit, I started typing away and adding little inserts where needed to complete the story or fill in the details. It went very smoothly without any hassle, and I am sure that my entry will not be changed for a while. I can't imagine someone being so upset by little stories that make up my sorority, that they would go and change something like that.
As for the chicken for Burger King, I found it rather disturbing. I know that it is an ad campaign, however who ever thought that it was a good idea, I would like to meet. It must have taken a lot of time and effort for the man in the chicken suit to do all the the stunts for a little advertising on the web. These types of things I feel are completely legitiment to be placed on the web or on Wikipedia because it is a blog, however the stories like these are ones that make the website lose its credibility. I have always used Wikipedia for research, not for making a man in a chicken suit dance. I believe that would fit more on YouTube. I do not believe for a minute that the chicken was documented for purposes besides advertising. Burger King got the name out in public and had such a crazy twist to it, that people would go to the website just to see the chicken do a stunt. I know when I first saw it tonight, I told my roommates how disturbed I was watching this full grown man in a chicken suit do the moonwalk.
Overall, after this week, I do not think I will be going to Wikipedia very often anymore because of how easy it is to add to the blog and the pointless blogs there are in itself. Its almost to the point that I want to check out the information on some of the topics that I have researched in the past on Wikipedia to see if the information is correct. I even had a "toolbar" for Wikipedia to look up information faster, but I guess I will be getting rid of that. As for watching my own post on the website, I will be curious if anyone tries to change the information, however I would not be suprised even though the information is correct.
Comments
I too feel a little more uncomfortable with using Wikipedia as a valid source. However, I have found it to be very useful in pointing me in the right direction on a lot of information. I don't think you should give up on it altogether. Otherwise you might never get the opportunity to see more disturbing things like the chicken.
Posted by: Mills | March 29, 2007 01:06 AM
I as well have been told my my professors that it is ok siting Wikipedia. I actually wasn't too familiar with the site myself, until this module. You make a great point that it is an excellent place to get a start on ideas and/or background of something. However, after spending some time on the site this past week, its made me more aware of how Wikipedia actually functions. First off, I had no idea that anyone was able to edit most of the information within the site itself. So I guess credibility is at stake when using this as a reliable source of information. A person may not know anything about a topic, yet they have the authority to put their input into the main page of that particular topic. It just doesn't seem very crediable to me. For research and college-level papers, I believe students should focus on more scholarly journals and articles, where there's sufficient research to back up the findings within the journal and/or article. That's just my thoughts...
Posted by: Erin | March 30, 2007 02:22 PM
I'm surprised that some instructors allow Wikipedia as a sited source. Just about every class I've had at UMN specifically state it is not allowed (even my language teachers). I never truly got this but after finding out how easy edits are, I can certainly understand why this is not a good resource. It's almost scary (like using a blog as a reputable source).
Posted by: JuliaT | March 30, 2007 07:44 PM
I do believe it is somewhat concerning that professors would allow the use of Wiki as a valid source. I myself have been guilty of using it. After this weeks readings and such it made me think twice about using it as a source even if it might be approved.
Posted by: Jamie Johnson | April 1, 2007 10:10 PM
I think we all either knew, or discovered that Wikipedia was not a credible source for academic purposes. The scary question is, how many people out there realize this?
Just the other night at a party my husband brought up posting something silly on Wikipedia and my friends had no clue how Wikipedia worked- but yet they all agreed that they used it to gain information.
Further- when a person google's a subject, let's say 'george w. bush', the Wikipedia link is the top and center!
Posted by: Julie Swenson | April 1, 2007 10:48 PM