Comments on: Discussion Post 2: Wikipedia as a Reference Source

By: Saraltchooscogs

Saraltchooscogs — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 07:21:13 +0000

hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.
zdueiaxutcwaodqrswpfeyhepyfgkkhmzhvhello

By: Craig Boyd

Craig Boyd — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:49:54 +0000

Wiki is a great source as it allows tons of people to add insight on interesting topics. Unfortunately, that allows for some abuse an inaccuracies. But for the most part, Wiki is an outstanding source as the inaccuracies are generally weeded out, as the system is designed.

If used properly, Wiki is a great starting point to get a feel from a topic and it can refer you to sources which you can trust as accurate. So, use and enjoy Wiki, but don’t assume everything on it is necessarily factual.

By: Mary Waterer

Mary Waterer — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:25:28 +0000

I thought these videos were extremely humorous and very true. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source but now I’m a little hesitant to use it. I have always known that it wasn’t always correct but I was not aware of how easy it is to change an entry. I am thankful it exists though because it tends to be rather accurate and helps one get a start on learning about pretty much anything.
I also found the second video on Wikilobbying to be very interesting. The idea that companies are paying people to go and create entries in favor of their businesses is brilliant on their part but potentially dishonest.

By: Patrick Britton

Patrick Britton — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:29:53 +0000

Stephen Colbert made very valid points in his satirical review of Wikipedia. I think the most important message to be taken from these sketches would be the message that has always been voiced about information on the internet. That message would be to be extremely careful about using the information you find on the internet because you do not know whether or not the information is reliable.

For example, my friend posted his own addition to wikipedia under the topic of “Email.” He wrote in the history category that “On September 15, 2007, [I] wrote the greatest email ever written.”

While wikipedia is a good resource to start a research project, it should not be relied upon for completely accurate analysis.

By: Kathryn Nesbit

Kathryn Nesbit — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:07:39 +0000

I found the clips funny and very true. Many sites such as Wikipedia can be easily changed in order to reflect one person’s view. Changing things allows for the spread of misinformation. As these websites become more and more popular, this becomes more of an issue. It would be nice if there were a way to know who did the editing and what they wished to prove by their changes. Till then we all need to just take what we read from these sites at face value.

By: Trenton Langston

Trenton Langston — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:47:05 +0000

I found that the comments made by Steven Colbert to be very humorous but suprisingly true. I read up on how wikipedia recieves its information and found that no credentials were actually needed in order to publish or edit some form of information on the website. I was also taken back by microsofts attempts to improve their image by the use of propaganda on the internet. Lying in order to gain th publics trust would seeem like the last way possible to get people to believe you and i could not believe that microsoft would attempt this stunt on wikipedia. I sometimes use wikipedia to get a broad overview of topics but i will be much more objective and careful when considering what to take away form this website.

By: Tracey Watson

Tracey Watson — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:32:16 +0000

I found the video clips on the credibility of Wikipedia to be be very interesting. Even though Colbert was jokingly bashing the site, everything that he said had truth behind it. Internet sites like Wikipedia can not always be reliable when trying to obtain credible information when doing research on a topic, and I think that this is something that is understood by most people. So, therefore these videos in no way made an impact on the way that I view unrescrited online sources,but it did reinforce the importance of using citations.I think that it should be a new requirement added to Wikipedia, that anyone who edits the infomation should have to cite the source that they used to obtain it just in case there is some sort of discrepancy with the information that they provided. I also think that this will keep people from posting bogus information because they won’t have a credible source to back them up.

By: Ashley Davis

Ashley Davis — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:05:45 +0000

Though Colbert’s videos were very funny, it was scary to think how much I rely on wikipedia. When I want to look up something quickly, or just get some background facts, over the past year or so, going to wikipedia has been my first instinct. Its really unnerving to think that I could be reading an article about elephants, and come across that Stephen Colbert has helped triple the elephant population. At the same time, I have always been told that wikipedia is an unreliable resource, which is why I have always steered clear of it for academic purposes. These videos have made me think about examining how and why I use wikipedia casually. The Microsoft aspect of the videos gives a surprising angle to the story. I understand it is in Microsoft’s best interest to appear favorable on wikipedia, which has become a resource used by so many. It was still shocking to hear that they paid someone to change wikipedia. Overall, Colbert is right, reality truly has become a commodity. What is scary is how it has affected me and what aspects of my reality are untrue.

By: Satie Munn

Satie Munn — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:21:25 +0000

I think that many people today, including myself, do rely on Wikipedia for information. But, most people assume that the information is accurate just because it is on the site. Although its true that not just anyone can edit wikipedia, you have to go in and register, I feel as if alot of the information on Wikipedia is facts swayed by personal opinion. At the bottom of each entry, there are references for information which I think is important. The thing that shocked me the most was the fact that Microsoft was willing to pay someone to edit their site so that they would be able to influence public opinion about their product. When he said “Reality has become a commodity” that is somewhat of a scary thought.. especially because it is not that far off from the truth.

By: Matt Tsun

Matt Tsun — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:42:22 +0000

Despite the humorous intention of these clips, Stephen Colbert brings to our attention some points that are important to consider. How much has credibility and accuracy been compromised in today’s society where we receive our information from many different sources? How many people around the world look things up on sites like wikipedia and just take what they see at face value and assume its validity? These are questions that we as a society should ask ourselves from time to time, just to be sure that we understand the need to be careful in trusting our sources. However, I do believe that ultimately, people do realize the need to verify information and to a certain extent, follow up on these inclinations. This is one way in which citations can be useful. It is easy to check on the validity of a statement if one knows where it came from. Accuracy and credibility will always be important, because of they fade away too much, we all might believe that there are more elephants in Africa today than there were 10 years ago.