I use Wikipedia very often when I’m trying to find out some general information about a subject. If I’m trying to remember what mechanical energy consists of, Wikipedia or google would be my first stop (if I have internet access at the moment). I usually start with google, but Wikipedia is sometimes my first shot. I frequently choose a Wikipedia page from the google results, because I’ve found Wikipedia to be brief but informative. I don’t count on it for accuracy of a specific detail without checking at least one other source to verify a fact.
As a teacher, I wouldn’t ordinarily accept Wikipedia as a source, except for a general statement of opinions. For instance, a student might use Wikipedia to support an assertion that some people associate two particular events. I would accept it as evidence of a common misunderstanding or other phenomenon.
The article supports what I consider the appropriate use of Wikipedia. It is a concise encyclopedia type source, which should be used to quickly get a view of a topic and find out some possibly related terms. The details found there can be searched for in other sources, which you might not have thought of on your own. The article supports my view that Wikipedia is generally correct, and if corroborated elsewhere, can be a fast source of information (Johnson, 2006).
My policy on internet research is that it’s incredibly valuable and fast. The reliability of the source, as determined by methods discussed in this class, is key to how much verification is needed. If an obviously reliable source is not available, then multiple sources of unknown accuracy can be used. For instance, when I need a physical constant for an important calculation, I might use a number if I find the same value on several apparently unrelated websites. Of course, a source like the machinery’s handbook is preferred to multiple unknown sites. Sometimes a number can be bracketed by a reliable source, then when a reasonable number is found on an unverified page, it may make sense to use it. For instance, if I have textbook values for the yield strength of A36 steel and several stainless steels, I might be confident in a website value for a unique blend of steel that fits the pattern.
Bibliography
Johnson, D. (2006). Wikipedia: Ban it or Boost it? Media Matters , 26-27.
As a teacher, I wouldn’t ordinarily accept Wikipedia as a source, except for a general statement of opinions. For instance, a student might use Wikipedia to support an assertion that some people associate two particular events. I would accept it as evidence of a common misunderstanding or other phenomenon.
The article supports what I consider the appropriate use of Wikipedia. It is a concise encyclopedia type source, which should be used to quickly get a view of a topic and find out some possibly related terms. The details found there can be searched for in other sources, which you might not have thought of on your own. The article supports my view that Wikipedia is generally correct, and if corroborated elsewhere, can be a fast source of information (Johnson, 2006).
My policy on internet research is that it’s incredibly valuable and fast. The reliability of the source, as determined by methods discussed in this class, is key to how much verification is needed. If an obviously reliable source is not available, then multiple sources of unknown accuracy can be used. For instance, when I need a physical constant for an important calculation, I might use a number if I find the same value on several apparently unrelated websites. Of course, a source like the machinery’s handbook is preferred to multiple unknown sites. Sometimes a number can be bracketed by a reliable source, then when a reasonable number is found on an unverified page, it may make sense to use it. For instance, if I have textbook values for the yield strength of A36 steel and several stainless steels, I might be confident in a website value for a unique blend of steel that fits the pattern.
Bibliography
Johnson, D. (2006). Wikipedia: Ban it or Boost it? Media Matters , 26-27.
No comments:
Post a Comment