Scribd
Upload
35 views2 pages

Reading Response Journal

The document discusses the debate around the reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia given that its articles can be written and edited by anyone. While some critics argue it lacks authenticity due to amateur writers without credentials, studies have found Wikipedia's accuracy is comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia relies on readers to distinguish reliable information and has implemented additional safeguards like user registration and delayed publishing. However, it has been successful so far without such measures and many experts have found entries in their fields to be authentic.

Uploaded by

kkootha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views2 pages

Reading Response Journal

The document discusses the debate around the reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia given that its articles can be written and edited by anyone. While some critics argue it lacks authenticity due to amateur writers without credentials, studies have found Wikipedia's accuracy is comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia relies on readers to distinguish reliable information and has implemented additional safeguards like user registration and delayed publishing. However, it has been successful so far without such measures and many experts have found entries in their fields to be authentic.

Uploaded by

kkootha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Writing a reading-response journal

Source: In Wikipedia we trust by Robert Matthews


Genre: Reading response journal
Summary
The controversy revolves around the trustworthiness of the contents of Wikipedia, an online
encyclopedia, which can be written by anyone and available to everyone. Some claims it lacks
authenticity as many writers will be amateurs with no scholastic background and are not
competent. In addition, there are also pranksters who write defamatory and misleading articles
and therefore critics say that not all people can be trusted or sincere in their writings. This article
will consider some of these critical remarks.
Along with its growth and disputations, Wikipedia has recently announced further safeguards to
protect its contents such as registering its users, editing articles and delaying publications until
they have been checked. These late additions have added fuel to the critic’s comments, which
they claim, supports their criticism. But they omit the fact that Wikipedia has done well thus far
without such safeguards, still there are also other innumerable misconceptions existing on the
website.
Besides many experts in their own fields have stated that the entries they have read have
impressed them with their authenticity. There has also been attempt to gauge its reliability more
scientifically and one such attempt by a panel of experts commissioned by the science journal
Nature that the accuracy of Wikipedia is comparable to that of Encyclopedia Britannica.
Wikipedia has also relied on its readers to be able to distinguish the good from the bad and have
trusted its patrons to use their contents sensibly.
With all these doubts and criticism of Wikipedia, the question is why it increasing in popularity
and the quality of its contents is rated highly by contributors who are paid no remuneration nor
for fame. Just love of contribution and sharing their knowledge and belief. This is because there
is a new democracy in liberalism of expressing your views on the web.

Personal Response

As Times are changing, new infocom technology via the Internet has now connected the global
activities in almost all aspects of life and English as a medium of usage on the Internet, is
motivating many young people to learn English. However, the English language is itself
changing with new words and usage while common words are emerging, as the young Internet
users are able to communicate well using the new Internet English. Still we can communicate
globally by using simple English. Of course, as time passes other languages will also be
substituted.

It cannot be claimed that Wikipedia facts are accurate but they do give some information for
quick reference. This is because we do not know the background of the author or the researcher
or if they have the correct credentials to write about their topics.
Writing a reading-response journal

Every user of Wikipedia should know that its contents should be taken for own sake. But it has
its genuine value and is a quick reference for students and others in need of a quick knowledge.
It has its limitations and works well for some topics – a quick way to find some dates or facts or
at least get some historical context like World War 2.

In my opinion as a student, Wikipedia has been a somewhat helpful tool in doing research with
its multiple interpretations that should be verified by individuals’ perspectives. Given that there
are thousands of members, each with a slightly different opinion on everything, I think it is a
great community on the web sharing information although there need to be a good form of
checking the contents; maybe some day software will be developed to check the authenticity of
web sites. So Wikipedia- Are they good or bad?

You might also like