Credible Information Debate

Credible Information Debate

The subject of this paper is to debate and determine whether or not Wikipedia is a valid and credible source of information to use. The Internet provides an astronomical amount of information that has become direct resource to retrieve information from globally. Internet users must ensure that the information they are receiving is truthful and can be validated by the Editors, sources from which the information comes from, researchers, and the companies in which this information is obtained. In this debate we will address the pros and cons from which this source of information comes from. The question at hand is that because the Wikipedia Encyclopedia has well surpassed the Encyclopedia Britannica by more million of articles does that mean that the information is accurate and true? It's imperative that we keep in mind that fraud and falsified information has been exposed and validated as it pertains to Wikipedia.

Reliable Source

Fraud and false information exposed on Wikipedia makes it hard to believe Wikipedia could be a credible source. Wikipedia is a well-known site that many people use to receive their information regarding different subjects, topics, etc. Many people rely on the site to provide them with information on anything they want to know or know more about. People use the site frequently. What makes this easy; go-to website non-credible is that anybody can share information on the website at no cost. Even if the information is true or false, there is no reliable way of knowing it. Wikipedia relies solely on the "knowledge" of others. If anybody would want to do a research report or essay on a specific topic, Wikipedia, more than likely will have some information on that topic. The information however would be questionable because anybody, even someone without the credentials can provide the information.

Wikipedia has had its share of controversy for fabricated articles written in the encyclopedia. In 2005, John Seigenthaler Sr, Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, reported Wikipedia in USA Today for claiming he had something to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy. The site also had other incorrect information about him like the time he spent in the Soviet Union. ("Wikipedia Tightens the Reins," 2005).Wikipedia took the information down shortly, after Seigenthaler had exposed them. This shows the lack of editing Wikipedia provides for their articles. Wikipedia has said they are changing things around on the site to supply readers more trustworthy information. It will take a while to clean things up on the site to make readers feel comfortable in believing in the articles.

When doing research, professors/teachers require that students provide citations when needed. The info on the Wikipedia site is heavily which questions whether or not those citations are accurate. Some information has citations although other information states on the website, in need of citations. When anybody can come in and out of the website editing information, there will be citations that would need editing as well. In an interview with Business Week in 2005, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, was questioned about the credibility of the site and asked if students and researchers should cite the encyclopedia. "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good," the founder explains. "Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background