I use Wikipedia at least once a month. I know it is not the most recommended site to visit as far as retrieving correct information. People edit statements on Wikipedia all the time, stating what they enter on the page is true. Users compete to edit information, and that is why some paragraphs are not easily read between their lines. Baker said “Wikipedia was the point of convergence for the self-taught and the expensively educated”. It’s either: you are what others would call a ‘know-it-all’, or an actual, certified professional historian. People always try to outsmart others, so it gets more confusing as far as who is reliable or dishonest.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Chito2500 on Documentation Purpose
- Jovi on Documentation Purpose
- Jessica on The Life of a Link
- Julissa <3 on Journal Entry 4
- Madi on New knowldege
t a g s
- alternative media
- Badke
- big data
- citation
- copyright
- data
- databases
- digital
- digital age
- documentation
- EBSCO
- Eland
- Flickr
- folksonomy
- Information
- John V. Pavlik
- JOURNAL
- knowledge
- law
- media
- news
- Optimization
- Pavlik
- plagiarism
- privacy
- process documentation
- reading
- reading response
- research
- research journal
- research paper writing
- research process
- research proposal
- Search Engine
- search engines
- social media
- sources
- technology
- terms
- web
- web 2.0
- Wikipedia
- Zine
- zines
Archives
Categories
Meta