"A False Wikipedia 'Biography'" and "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head"

"A False Wikipedia 'Biography'"
"Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head"

Students who were assigned these two readings should reply to this blog post with at least two substantive paragraphs responding to any or all of these questions:

1. What do these articles make you think about knowledge and credibility?
2. What does the Seigenthaler episode make you think about who gets to determine the truth?
3. How does this incident shape what you think about sources in and out of an academic context?

Comment about A false Wikipedia 'biography'

In the past credibility has always been preached by teachers in high school. The only way it could be credible was if I could find it in a book or a written source. I started to use internet sources my senior year in high school and I was always told if I found a website that was made by some random person and they you cited sites I would have to look into the sites they used also. It makes me think if something really is credible and I will need to look deeper into information from now on.

I'm really glad to see that webexpedia is trying to make sure all of there posts and comments are as credible as possible. Keeping people's name anonymous helps protect them from people that disagree with their ideas and may feel like harassing them about it. I'm glad our congress has the laws it does so people are protected.

I think that it will increase the screening process for academic contexts. They will make sure they try to get the correct and the most recent information available.


Even before I learned about

Even before I learned about this fraudulent biography, I always double-checked the facts that I obtained from the Internet. I have always had my suspicions that not all the information found on the Internet was entirely reliable. This article just proves that I was right. Especially with a site like Wikipedia, where anybody can put their two cents on the site, you have to expect that some of information is not true.

Hopefully after this incident, Wikipedia will realize that there is a problem. They should have their editors actually read some of the entries and verify the facts. If they don't, they are just asking for a repeat of what has already happen and is probably still happening right now. With the way things are going in the world of technology and the rapid change,
people will have no choice but to rely on online information. In the future, this site could be the only thing people use for an encyclopedia.

It does not change much

It does not change much about what I thought towards credibility with wikipedia. This is mainly because while wikipedia did very well on the subjects that they reviewed they only reviewed topics that apparently have ultimate truth. What I mean is they chose to go after scientific topics that in theory can be proven wrong and right and normally what someone would put on wikipedia would be what they researched. However, I believe that if one would go to a different topic that do not take hours to research instead take five minutes to think about u would find more crackpots writing whatever they want.

While this did not change my views on wikipedia it did hurt the credibility of Brittanica. While obviously I never think a writing has everything write, on topics such as the ones chosen I feel that Brittanica should be more accurate with all the money they are making because of their accuracy over others such as wikipedia.

Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head (rnfrazie)

Most research that I have done on the Internet often includes websites that have major credentials such as a company’s website or about.com where included information has at least been checked to confirm it’s accuracy. All of my previous classes don’t accept any Wikipedia entries as viable sources because of it’s openness to edits from anyone regardless of their knowledge of the subject if they have any at all. Without a doubt Wikipedia has an enormous amount of information on its site, but you need to be careful of even minor errors in an article.

The Seigenthaler episode further illustrates that some people believe what they see on the Internet without second thoughts. People that think for themselves would at least try to see if the information was factual by looking at more credible sites. Wikipedia is moving in the right direction with this screen of only updating when the information makes a significant improvement and will overall give Wikipedia a more credible image.

The incident will make me be sure on any information I get from the Internet so that I can be sure what I’m presenting to a teacher, a class or even just my friends is as factual as possible.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.