User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Many people often assume that creating a page on Wikipedia is a simple task that can be done by anyone. However, this assumption is not entirely true. While it is true that Wikipedia is an open-source platform that allows anyone to edit or contribute content, creating a new page requires a certain level of expertise and experience.
To publish a page, creators have to cite their references from other "reliable" websites, and these websites must undergo a review process to determine their reliability. Additionally, a Wikipedia professional must review the page to ensure that the information is accurate and "constructive." However, even if all of these steps are followed, there is still a risk that the article could be deleted if a Wikipedia professional finds any inaccuracies, such as plagiarism. Wikipedia ensures the accuracy and appropriateness of its content, promptly deleting any errors or inappropriate material.
Moreover, it is a common practice for schools to advise their students against using Wikipedia as a source of information. This advice is based on the assumption that the information on Wikipedia is unreliable, but according to Associate Professor Mathieu O'Neil from the University of Canberra's News and Media Research Centre[1], this assumption is not accurate. He suggests that the reason teachers don't like it is because their information is outdated.
While students cannot use Wikipedia, they can use one of Wikipedia's competitors: Britannica. A review of 42 science articles[2] by subject experts in Nature found that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica. A study by Oxford University[3] of 22 English-language articles concluded that Wikipedia was more accurate than Britannica. Furthermore, a review of 110 studies published in 2014[4] concluded “Wikipedia is generally a reliable source of information.”
Despite the aforementioned challenges, Wikipedia remains an excellent source of information. The platform has a vast pool of knowledge that is updated frequently by a community of volunteers and professionals. Additionally, Wikipedia's content is available in multiple languages, making it a great resource for people from different parts of the world. Furthermore, Wikipedia's content is free and easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection. By using Wikipedia, you can learn about almost anything, from historical events to scientific discoveries. So, do not hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source of information for your research.
References
[edit]- ^ Associate Professor Mathieu O'Neil from the University of Canberra's News and Media Research Centre
- ^ Giles, Jim (2005-12-01). "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head". Nature. 438 (7070): 900–901. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 16355180. S2CID 4417563.
- ^ "Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias" (PDF).
- ^ Mesgari, Mostafa; Okoli, Chitu; Mehdi, Mohamad; Nielsen, Finn Årup; Lanamäki, Arto (February 2015). ""The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of W ikipedia". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66 (2): 219–245. doi:10.1002/asi.23172. ISSN 2330-1635. S2CID 218071987.