Schiff and Giles Wikipedia Articles

I, personally, have never used Wikipedia as a reference when researching or defining words. In fact, I don’t believe I ever knew what Wikipedia was until last semester when I was assigned to write a definition paper. The professor specifically warned us about using dictionary.com or Wikipedia since they aren’t reliable sources of information. First of all, the internet has never seemed trustworthy in my eyes but I was extremely shocked to hear that the website could be updated by anyone and that words are constantly being defined by common people. After reading Stacy Schiff’s article about Wikipedia and its origin I trusted the website even less. Schiff begins her article describing Wikipedia, its purpose, its popularity, and its flaws (especially compared to the encyclopedia of Britannica). Its purpose is to give people a free encyclopedia which is written and read in “their own language.” As for its popularity, the website is the seventeenth most visited website and exists in over 200 languages. It is frightening to know that people actually spend that much time on their computer fixing and posting definitions. Schiff also describes the founder of the site, Jimmy Wales, who’s history is making money by dabbling with pornography. Maybe it is wrong to judge but how much does this man really care about educating people for the greater good. He says the “key thing is getting it write,” whether it’s written by teenagers or professors. There are no rules or guidelines on what should be posted which leads to its mistakes. Wikipedia was made to correct the old encyclopedia but instead has just made it worst. Definitions are abused so much that the site has to regulate police officers called admins, who check for violations. This seems more like a job than a privilege to watch over the site almost 24/7 checking for recent updates that are absurd. In the end Wikipedia seems to be a lot of gossip. Apparently there are longer entries on celebrities than there are on historical people and events. It’s a place to have an argument or conversation with someone, reasoning over what, when, and where something happened or their personal view on a subject matter. Britannica may have mistakes written in it but those mistakes are always going to be there since it has a physical form. In fact those mistakes make up history; they aren’t erased the minute inadequate information supplied. For example, Schiff explains that the encyclopedia wrote the definition for woman as “the female of man,” which seems sexist but then again is a true part of history. Men were seen as the higher form of being and this “wrong” information only helps support a past theory. We can learn from these mistakes which are permanently placed in physical objects.
Jim Giles also writes about Wikipedia and its misinformed information compared to the Encyclopedia of Britannica. Studies have shown that Wikipedia has four mistakes in an entry while Britannica holds three. Giles writes that Wales is planning on setting a ‘stable’ version of entries when he feels that the definition has reached its potency. Maybe then Wikipedia will have a higher quality of information but some people will always remain old-fashioned believing that a book, with an author and publisher, gives a much more precise and accurate definition.
Wikipedia does give recent and updated information quicker than any other source but it’s not as reliable as something proven by experts. It may be easier to understand and more collective with different views and opinions. The entries are thought provoking, which leave room for discussion rather than solid facts.