Discussion

"Wikipedia is a better resource than many libraries"

5 replies [Last post]

"Wikipedia is a better resource than many libraries"

Haris Mahmood's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 1
Applause: 1

Nowadays in this very advanced world internet is a must resource and for that people do go to wikipedia for help so i am in the favour of the topic

 

 

3 years 8 weeks ago
Alex Helling's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Posts: 1128
Applause: 107

Almost all libraries have internet access so might be said to contain wikipedia.

That aside if we are simply considering the physical component of a library against wikipedia it is probably only the very biggest libraries that contain more information than wikipedia. One advantage of wikipedia over even these libraries is that many of the largest libraries are university libraries and so not easily accessable to the general public - my brother for example while doing his phd had quite a task to get access to the Bodlean library in Oxford.

3 years 8 weeks ago
ProfessorBanana's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Posts: 2
Applause: 4

While you are correct in stating that we live in an advancing world where the internet is a good source, I stand on the firmest negation of your statement that wikipedia is better than liberaries as a source, due to the following three contentions. First and foremost being that  Wikipedia's ease of editing compromises it's validity, two any and all moderation takes place in too wide a timeframe to prevent any wrong information from slipping out, and lastly Wikipedia merely appears to be a reliable source due to it's position in search engine results.

Wikipedia can and is easily edited by hundreds of normal people, many of them having little to no idea what they are speaking of and merely wishing to share what they believe to be true (or some just believe it humerous to share false information). A student citing and utalising this information, may not only get a less than good (or even plain bad) grade, but try to use such "gained" knowledge again later only to be shot down and discouraged by their newly found false facts. This can be shown by the fact that Wikipedia.com stated that Michael Jackson, studied at Bringum Young University, a clearly false statement. In fact in the terms of use Wikipedia.com states "We make no warranty that our services will meet your requirements, be safe, secure, uninterrupted, timely, accurate, or error-free, or that your information will be secure."  Not even attempting to hide the fact that their information could very well contain errors.

This brings me to my second point on contention. For nine months this false fact of Michael Jackson having studied that Bringum Young University remained on the website, viewed by hundreds of people. More and more pages fraught with inaccuracies can be found on the website, accessed by numerous individuals. That being said this is not the direct fault of Wikipedia, as in their terms of use they state "we only host your content", so they are in fact acknowledging the fact that they only put up the content and really nothing further.

Lastly after Google wanted to stop so much Spam from showing up in their search results they changed the way their engines run. Google scans the webpages for the key words you searched against those in the articles, Wikipedia being a massive online source (full of false statements or otherwise), it contains a massive amount of words many of them likley to match with your search phrases. Thus leading to Wikipedia showing up first in search results thus leading to people believing it to be a credible source, when in reality its abundance of words merely lands it there.

Therefore in conclusion while the internet is indeed a source which should and will be used in modern times, Wikipedia has in no mean surpassed the Library with its falsified facts and little no moderation coming up high in search results and therefore confusing the masses.

2 years 48 weeks ago
Sainath Ch's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 May 2014
Posts: 2
Applause: 0

The main intention rather intention use reason was that- Wikipedia gives the sponteneous data when typed in the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) whereas, on the other hand, hand book takes a lot of time consuming and boring. However, the main difference in both of it was if a person was a pedant handbook reader then it is suitable. Moreover, as in this 21st century, technology is burgeoning at a fast pace, So we have to volatile accordingly. Finally, in my conclusion its a catch 22 situation and if I have slight opinion on it then it is the person's intentions to prefer what is good and what not.

2 years 35 weeks ago
Nishka's picture
Offline
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 2
Applause: 0

It is true that wikipedia is preferable & it does give us alot more info in a quicker time as compared to a library, although this is making society lose its common practises. There used to be those days when children used to wait to go to a library & & look at picture in the books, but everythingb is now mordernised

But yes, wikipedia is a very fun & easy way to get info

2 years 35 weeks ago
Lauraa Laura's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2014
Posts: 1
Applause: 0

I do not believe that one is betther than the other, and i support both ways of getting information.

 

2 years 14 weeks ago
JS Andy Choi's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Applause: 0

Sometimes, Wikipedia is incorrect. Because it is crowd sourced, anyone can add information on obscure topics, and sometimes this information is wrong.

2 years 12 weeks ago
JS Andy Choi's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Applause: 0

Sometimes, Wikipedia is incorrect. Because it is crowd sourced, anyone can add information on obscure topics, and sometimes this information is wrong.

2 years 12 weeks ago
Syndicate content