Blog 6 Reading Review

Atterman, Doug. "beyond Wikipedia." 34(2006): 1-6.
Summary
In the article, “beyond Wikipedia”, explains the pros and cons of using wiki sites and tells who the specific site is designed by. These newly used sites, for example, Wikipedia, allow users to add information at any time. While adding information the person who is making corrections does not need to know about HTML coding. Wikis are an educational tool that are uncensored before and while they are on the web. These wiki sites are being widely used by teacher and librarians and students. The main priority for the people using these sites are for educational purposes. The classes that are utilizing this source are gathering information from group discussions and other information on the web. Teachers may make a site for his or her particular class, and the students in that class can go on the wiki site and add information that they have found or their input on the topic. Another aspect that wiki sites have is a discussion board. On the discussion board people are allowed to add their opinion to the topic or just reflect.
Importance
The problem that researchers run into when using wiki sites are that, the people putting the information on the site is that the site is free from HTML codes. This means that just about anyone can who has the knowledge for computers and those without the knowledge are still able to put information on the site. The fact of the non coding allows anyone to perform this task of putting information on the internet. Another problem with Wikipedia is that the information viewed on the internet has not yet been reviewed or scanned for false information. This can put a person in a dilemma when researching because the researcher may not know that this source is actually reliable. Anyone can put their opinion on Wikipedia and someone may come along and not know it is someone’s opinion and use the information as a fact. Also, when classes post their discussions online for everyone to view, the information discussed amongst the group maybe false. This is where we keep coming up with the conclusion that these wiki sites especially Wikipedia are opinionated and loosely developed. People, classes, or teachers are always changing the information and updating the information. This means that this online encyclopedia is always changing it never remains constant. This could be a problem because, when doing research the information is constanly changing. A researcher wants reliable information for a well thought out paper. After reading this article I have come to the conclusion that wiki sites, such as Wikipedia are well liked for teacher and student communication, but never a good source for research.
Connections
This connects to my work that I have previously run across in my first year of college. Before this year I did not know what Wikipedia was let alone that it was an unreliable source. Last semester, my teacher would always preach to the class that Wikipedia was not a reliable, and to receive full credit it was not allowed as a source. I have always wondered why it was not a fully credited source, and this was one idea that drove me to want to write my paper on unreliable resources.
Supporting Sources
I could use this source for my paper because it first states that the website itself is not coded which means it is accessible for someone to change. The information on the site is constantly changing which means that it is not a steady site. Most importantly the information on the website was not scanned before or after it was released on the site. This brings me to the point where with these three things stated, how can these wiki sites be accurate.
Argument Source I think that this author well discusses his topic, although I think that he could have gone in to greater explanation on other sites that express false information on them. I only say this, because the title is “beyond Wikipedia”, he should have talked about how researchers need to go beyond Wikipedia for sources for an accurate paper.