For a knowledge to be true there should be facts and evidence that goes along with it. In our enormous world we rely on experts opinion to justify many of our knowledge claims, however, for wikipedia everyone seems to be an expert. Wikipedia, which is known for its information, relies on other who are not even experts to give opinions on certain knowledges. Wikipedia is not a reliable source especially since the actually sources will not be identified. WIthout knowing where the sources comes from we can not claim if the information or knowledge is true.
Wikipedia is not perfect nor are newspaper articles or scholarly journals, each and everyone of them can make an error. But, the differences of newspaper articles and the scholarly journals from wikipedia are that we know where the source are from and the information are accurate on. For Wikipedia, even the stupidest and the most incomplete source can become a source that lets other believe it to be true. Wikipedia creates and spreads unproven and false information to society, like a plague.
Also, one of many reason that wikipedia is an unreliable source is because the company of this website can agree and disagree with other people viewpoint. Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. In 2003, for example, an U. K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming.
More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions. In addition,in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers favor. Addition, to the last paragraph, on Wikipedia accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an unreliable source, and decided the editor if it is a reliable source. Last year, an incident, showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on false information as long as it suited their purpose. Wikipedia is not a website where it wishes for the consumers to use the right information, but rather to show them their side of viewpoint in certain topics. Lastly, another reason why wikipedia is an unreliable source is because it is also written on their website.
Wikipedia has a page where it has been typed We do not expect you to trust us. onto the website. It adds that it is not a primary source and that because some articles may contain errors, you should not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions. Wikipedia is not a source where experts who written the information made a wrong, it is a website where someone who has no knowledge of certain information telling others about it as if they are a truth. Wikipedia is a well known informational website throughout the country, however, it is also known as an unreliable source.
The sources that wikipedia uses arent from experts on certain knowledge but just regular people who has their own viewpoint to tell. I believe that wikipedia is not a reliable source because of its use of wrong editors, silencing accurate contributor, and the fact that it is written on their website. Knowledge and information should come from people who are an experts on certain topic and can prove that their claims are the truth, but for wikipedia it not one of those sources that should be used. Source:http://www. findingdulcinea. com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Rea.