Critically evaluate the traditional view essay

A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts. Its editors have also argued that, as a website, Wikipedia is able to include articles on a greater number of subjects than print encyclopedias can. Jonathan Sidener of The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote that "vandalism and self-serving misinformation [are] common particularly in the political articles".

That Critically evaluate the traditional view essay is chock full of useless arcana and did you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the and versions of Battlestar Galactica?

No errors were found, though there were significant omissions. There is no one perfect way. And when it comes down to it, sometimes he believes things that are a little bit, well, nuts.

In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese artand the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.

It concluded, "The quality of content is good in all three cases" and advised Wikipedia users "Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source.

April Learn how and when to remove this template message Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.

Technology and the Ethics of Responsibility

Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby. Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues 3 mentions Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles 3 mentions Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa 1 mention The most common praises were: The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes—which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online—beyond the standard bibliographic references".

Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views. The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants, and it is not clear how the participants were invited. The magazine asked experts to evaluate articles pertaining to their field. Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields.

A couple of weeks later, a Newsday sports writer reproduced the nickname in an article, and "with that act, the fake nickname became real". Areas of reliability Article instability and susceptibility to bias are two potential problem areas in a crowdsourced work like Wikipedia The reliability of Wikipedia articles can be measured by the following criteria: Britannica seems to claim that there is.

Some experienced users are designated as administrators, with special powers of binding and loosing: Wikipedia has survived this long because it is easier to reverse vandalism than it is to commit it Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits and traced them to their original source.

He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U. At one point I was the creator of Coca-Cola or something. Wikipedia was comparable to the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category. The author comments that: In conclusion, Seife presented the following advice: The lead investigator concluded: The effect of their intervention shows in the discussion pages of most contentious articles.

He was surprised that his entry to World Book Encyclopedia on virtual reality was accepted without question, so he concluded, "I now believe Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source for your information, because I know what the quality control is for real encyclopedias. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR.

Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor, indeed trivial, factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels.

The test was commissioned to a research institute Cologne-based WIND GmbHwhose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion on four criteria accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarityand judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average 1.

The danger is that if the original information in Wikipedia was false, once it has been reported in sources considered reliable, Wikipedia may use them to reference the false information, giving an apparent respectability to a falsehood.

A piece of misinformation originally taken from a Wikipedia article will live on in perhaps dozens of other websites, even if Wikipedia itself has deleted the unreliable material. But with something like this, all that goes out the window.How to Write a Critical Essay.

A critical essay is an analysis of a text such as a book, film, article, or painting. The goal of this type of paper is to offer a text or an interpretation of some aspect of a text or to situate the text in. Open Document. Click the button above to view the complete essay, speech, term paper, or research paper.

Reliability of Wikipedia

Introduction. For more than thirty-eight years, I have taught Reformational Philosophy at Dutch state universities. Every two years, I deal with the topic of Ethics of Technology.

As a thinker about the relation between Christian faith and technology, I have always been much interested in this subject.

The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often mi-centre.com reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.

Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge.

Download
Critically evaluate the traditional view essay
Rated 0/5 based on 56 review