said that educators that do not allow their students toaccess Wikipedia are “bad educators”. As he hadexplained in Online Information conference at London'sOlympia, students should be allowed with the access of this site as an online encyclopedia. He said that Wikipediais the stepping stone of the students to other sources."You can ban kids from listening to rock 'n' roll music,but they're going to anyway," he added. This mentalitygoes with information to, so why not let them? And that iswhy the creator had created new editing and checkingprocedures that made Wikipedia a trustworthy site. Oneof the procedures used is real-time critic review. The factthat technology has advanced, still the creator of Wikipedia prefers the use of peer critique (volunteerscheck new and updated articles for accuracy andimpartiality). This theme is taken from the CreativeCommons scheme which would "bring Wikipedia intoline with the rest of the free content culture". Ascompared to Encyclopedia Britannica with its 239 yearsof history and rigorous fact-checking procedures,Wikipedia is still prone to article vandalism .But still Britannica and Wikipedia should not beseen as direct competitors. Both have different way of delivering information to the learners and Wikipedia, hadmade the use of encyclopedias "trendy and popular" withyoung people, which could only benefit Britannica'ssubscription-led service ."
Wiki wants to give people the maximum freedom to do good.
” the last thing Jimmy Wales said tothe conference; this shows the clear goal of the website toreach out and give the learners, students the freedom toexplore and share more and more information .Meanwhile, different views rise with the use of Wikipedia. On the blog post of Nicholas Carr, he wrote,“Wikipedia articles have become the default external link for many creators of web content, not because Wikipediais the best source but because it’s the best-known sourceand, generally, its “good enough.” Wikipedia is the lazyman’s link, and we’re all lazy men, except for those of uswho are lazy women” . This is also true with thementality of a student trying to cram for a research not just because of the summarized contents of Wikipedia butalso the way internet or web browsers behave whensearching for information. Most of the results in theinternet points to Wikipedia, this deprives the student onhaving an in- depth search of the information, research ortopic.
4. CREDIBILITY ISSUE
Wikipedia is a good source of information especially forstudents who are searching for the general overview of the topic. However, it is not a recommended for collegestudents for their research and class projects, example of which writing a paper about a battle, students should referto history books not Wikipedia it only suggests quick facts, from the creator of Wikipedia himself, JimmyWales . Also to quote from Chronicle of HigherEducation:
Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on June 9, 2006 called “The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that hegets about 10 e-mail messages a week fromstudents who complain that Wikipedia has gottenthem into academic hot water. “They say,‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has nosympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks tohimself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”
As written earlier, Wikipedia is the “steppingstone” when researching for links on the internet, but thebad thing about this is that, when the student sees theinformation written on Wikipedia, he or she stopssearching for more and just be contented on the contentsthat Wikipedia has. The outcome of this is that the use orvisits of specialty sites will be less. Just like the author of the blog post “Wikipedia-Side Effects”, he starts usingwebsites MathWorld which consists of the largecontributor pool with little editorial control, to referencehis studies. As the speed of technology increases, moreand more websites had come out and one of this was abetter math reference site which is PlanetMath. For yearshe had used these sites to help his studies until a bettersite with a better web structure rises which is Wikipedia.Comparing Wikipedia to two Math specialist sites,PlanetMath and MathWorld, the popularity of Wikipediagrows faster that it overlaps the use of such sites. NowWikipedia is more visited by the author becauseWikipedia summarizes the contents of the two sites butwithout the better explanations of course and the topicswere copied referencing the two sites only as a link. Eventhough the two specialty sites are free to be copied, thechance of the student and the author to visit this site islesser .As to Wikipedia being widely used as areference to research by the students, many educatorswere alerted whether Wikipedia is a credible source ornot. According to Dave Taylor, recognized as an expertboth on technical and business issues wrote an articleregarding what Wikipedia is lacking. In his article “WhatWikipedia Lost: Credibility” sums up the credibility issueof Wikipedia. As he was editing a paper of his student, hesaid “It really hit me as I was editing the student papersand reading passages like this: