Jimmy Wales And Larry Sanger: Database Analysis

Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information? Author, John Seigenthaler in his narrative article published in 2005 in the USA Today “A False Wikipedia Biography,” he begins his personal story by describing how his character was assassinated by publishing false and malicious “biography” under his name on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia. His first goal is to convey millions of people that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool. His second goal is to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. By establishing his credibility, building his case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Seigenthaler succeeds in writing an interesting and informative

Because so many people have access to posting whatever information they want, there is a large amount of inaccurate information online. One reason for inaccuracy may be that bits and pieces were taken out of a particular story so it could be broadcasted in less time leaving the viewer or listener to fill in the missing pieces using their own assumptions. Also, websites such as Wikipedia cannot be trusted for accuracy because anyone can log on and change information.

The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, founded by Wales, has overseen the development of Wikipedia since 2003.

The Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

In “A False Wikipedia Biography,” Seingenthaler attempts to demonstrate the logic of his position. In paragraph 14, for example, he explains that, Wales (Wikipedia founder) insisted that his website is accountable and his volunteer editors correct mistakes within minutes. However, in paragraph 15, Seingenthaler experience refutes the stated as his false biography appeared on Wikipedia for four months without correction. This evidence logically supports his claim and evidence, which builds an appeal to logos and impress upon the reader that this is a problem worth of

Wikipedia is a collaborative resource, which aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge. In a serious examination of Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information we need to place our argument within a definable framework. As I will show information has many uses, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the use of Wikipedia for scholarly research, the kind, which I will be utilizing throughout the rest of my MBA program. I will be evaluating Wikipedia based on the parameters set forth by Brenda Spatt. The credentials, Impartiality, style/tone, and currency of Wikipedia will all be examined in this paper (Spatt 2011).

Launched on 15 January 2001, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses the web platform for online users to access. Boasting with over 26 million pieces of writing in 285 languages, Wikipedia has transformed to be a giant in the field of search engines optimization technology. The open source concept that it rides have made it cheap to access and a better choice for many online users. This is especially among the users who find it cumbersome to follow prolonged registration processes to access information on the internet. Any search term queried on the Google™ home page search engine will definitely give a hit from the Wikipedia site, and if not present, a prompt will request the user to create a page for such a term. In this way,

Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan, and John Riedl, the authors’ language use and their connectivity to the audience felt more natural and appropriate. Halfacker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl’s article was similar to a written research paper and research papers are papers written to get a message across to the public. They had headings that of a research paper such as the introduction, the hypothesis, methods used, discussion, results, and conclusion. Not only that, they used complex professional language which indicated that they knew what they were talking about and that they know the worth of the paper they are writing. “Wikipedia has changed from “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit” (Halfacker, para. 91).

Wikipedia counts 75,000 editors who check the articles and their content to make sure that the information is valid and reliable. According to Schaffer (2009), the journal Nature conducted a study in 2005 and proved that Wikipedia is just as valid as any other encyclopedia, including Britannica, keeping in mind that errors and vandalism can occur to any of them (para. 2).

When students are doing research on the internet, Wikipedia is usually one of the first site to appear. For students, the site is usually tempting to click, but they are quickly reminded by their teachers that Wikipedia should not be used as a site of knowledge. They label the site as inaccurate, unreliable, and uncreditable. In Boyd’s article she writes that teachers consistently tell students to stay clear of Wikipedia at all cost. Students should not have to see the site as tempting. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. Wikipedia has so much educational potential and should not be ignored by teachers. Boyd also writes that some analyses have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as creditable as, if not more reliable than, more traditional resources.

The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In July 2012, the Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline. In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis. In 2013, MIT's Technology Review revealed that since 2007, the site has lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia's millions of pages and those still there have focused increasingly on

Is it just because the writers do not flaunt their credentials like a cheap solicitor or psychologist? College and University administrators worry that anybody can write entries into Wikipedia, but what happened to listening to everybody’s point of view? Plus, it is viciously easy to write fake news on long-established newspapers with news sites, and yet those are admissible in dissertations and essays! Plus, getting your journal or essay published is as easy as paying a small fee. It is so easy that there are still journals on esteemed websites that claim being vegan makes people gay (that is not a joke, there are quite a few journals that throw that theory around like it is

Eventhough, the internet can be helpful with education, it can also be unreliable. However, “The Hive” by Marchall Poe, was the openness of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can use it. This might work for some people specially that ones who attend school or college. This is very helpful for them because in Wikipedia you can search or find anything you would like. Since anyone can write, or delete or use information off of Wikipedia, it makes it less controversial because anyone can put their input into the website. If don’t agree with something, that’s alright because you can add your own opinion. Poe describes how authors of certain wiki pages write with a bias to support their facts. Facts become opinions when feelings and emotions of bias get involved. “Instead of relying on experts to

Wikipedia has existed since January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written and edited by volunteers. Murley states that as of March 2008, Wikipedia contained more than nine million articles, of which two million were in English. More than 75,000 contributors write in more than 250 languages. (2010, p. 594) However, any one can edit an existing article by clicking on the edit tab found at the top of an article. Only anonymous registered users add new articles. These articles must meet Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. All references must be verifiable and the tone must be neutral. If the article does not meet all of the criteria, Wikipedia’s

simple using the menus or the create command. It has field types that are still