Overview
The article From Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia, written by Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger, focuses on how Wikipedia is perceived by users 11 and older. They conducted a survey for a group of 11-18 year old children who live at home and then 18 and older people who do not live with their parents. Flanagin and Metzger learned that while people thought that Wikipedia was credible, they still should not use it a source if they are trying to prove a point or write a paper because others do not believe in its credibility. They also learned that even if Wikipedia has the exact same information as Encyclopedia Britannica, they are more inclined to believe the information in the encyclopedia than in Wikipedia.
Why I Chose this Article?
I actually created a Wikipedia page when I was an undergraduate student for one of my religion courses. The goal was two-fold: create a page that told the truth about a woman in the Bible, and to get that page to be permanently on Wikipedia. The latter was way more difficult to do than the former. I never realized what you had to do to make sure the page was approved. Everything had to be cited by a reputable source. It had to be detailed and clear; no academic jargon was allowed. My project along with one other groups were the only ones to be accepted. In other words, there is a lot more to putting information on a Wikipedia page than just making an account and typing it. There is even a waiting period for it to be reviewed before publishing.
The Argument
My argument is that Wikipedia is a reliable, credible source that should be taken seriously. The information that is placed on these pages are vetted carefully. The requirements used forces the articles and pages to be as truthful and detailed as possible. Even when things do slip through the cracks, it does not take long before it is caught and corrected by another user or by Wikipedia itself.
Support
In an article written in 2015, it talked about how Wikipedia handles information related to science. “A 2005 study in the journal Nature found that the information provided on Wikipedia is almost as reliable as that of the benchmark, Encyclopedia Britannica. A 2011 study found that Wiki articles were on a par with professionally edited databases for health-care professionals” (Washington Post). Basically, Wikipedia is just as useful as other sources that people rely on regularly to gain information about medical areas.
Against
To go against my argument, I chose a university site. On the site it states that Wikipedia should not be used as a source: “No, because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isn’t a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to the website” (Connor State). Most academic settings argue against Wikipedia like their lives depended on it. I sometimes think they have a vendetta against the site. It is accurate, however, in stating that anyone can contribute to the articles on Wikipedia.
Conclusion
It is only fitting to conclude this with a statement from Wikipedia, itself. “Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow” (Wikipedia). This is the truest statement about Wikipedia that I have seen. Why? Because just like any other article published, even in a very academic, credible source, the article is still only as good as the writers and editors that have touched it. The articles are fallible because the authors are fallible. Nothing can be 100% true all the time, but it doesn’t hurt to have a good, simple source like Wikipedia to rely on.
Society and Information 