Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source?

Is Wikipedia A Reliable Source

Wikipedia is the number one website that provides millions of users with articles on a large range of topics. Is the source reliable? Many how have used Wikipedia say yes but there are skeptics who say no. Let us get an understanding by defining reliable source. In Webster Dictionary reliable is defined as: that may be relied on, dependable and source is defined as; anything, or place from which something comes, originals or developed.

Considering that the articles are mostly written by unknown authors whom have no professional knowledge of the information they are writing about, how can we trust the information if the authors don’t know anything about the subject? Professors and Teachers recommends to their students to not use Wikipedia as their source for their information. The site does have it good points of being easy to use, its free, information is comprehensive and it goes beyond printed books contents, context and currency. But even with all of the good points listed above, Teachers tell their students to not to use Wikipedia as a primary source but as a starting point for information. People in the news industry also use Wikipedia a source of information in their news reports. Wikipedia is known as “people’s encyclopedia” because it allows corrections, contributions to its site by everyone.

Allowing unknown authors to post to leave the site open to racial and ethnic bias will leave the site filled with no independent and creditable verification of the information.

Wikipedia allows contributing authors to write what they want on the site even if they are knowledgeable on the subject they are posting to. Wikipedia’s authors write false statements that are gone uncorrected for months. Which by that time have created drawback that ruin someone’s’ reputation personally and professionally. In 2011 the golfer, Fuzzy Zoellen Wikipedia was vandalized by a post made by an unknown author that stated on Zoellen’s page that he was a alcohol and pill user , wife and child beater. This was a clearly a vindictive act off malice. None the less Wikipedia went to work and traced the post back to a law firm in Miami, but could not pinpoint the author. Zoellen was unable to sue Wikipedia due to the protections from Sect. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity from liability for providers and users off an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by others. What this means is Wikipedia is not responsible for what its contributors place on its site and finding out who wrote the false information is at most impossible. Zoellen’s page was corrected, but the damage was already done without the one responsible and identified or punished.

Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales said “Editors are aggressive about cleaning up inaccuracies reported to the site, but people do misbehave on the internet”.