Michael Jordan vs Wikipedia Essay Example for Free

Michael Jordan vs Wikipedia EssayMichael Jordan VS Wikipedia Over the past twelve years there has been a vast controversy on whether or not the website Wikipedia is current enough to get sources that are accurate enough to intend. Many seem quick to judge whether or not if Wikipedia is a credible source and cites the necessary some to make it a reliable source to get information from. In the article Wikipedia(2013), unknown authors inform the general public about the Wikipedia website. The authors provide evidence on who updates their information, site their sources and include references. The purpose of Wikipedia is to persuade use uprs to use the website. Wikipedia targets the general public to use their website for a non-profit organization. Wikipedia is a reliable source because it cites its sources and gives sexual facts. On the website Wikipedia, under the source entry Wikipedia goes into detail about all the attributes and information about Wikipedia and how it came about and why it is a reliable site to get information from. Wikipedia has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.Wikipedia is a reliable source because of its vandalism program in which it is able to detect and remove vandalism within a few minutes. Also with Wikipedia being a ease online encyclopedia it allows for open structure, which lets the public write and change anything about any topic. On the Wikipedia website under the topic Wikipedia, found that a non-scientific report in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for some scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopedia Britannica(preface).With that being said, it justifies that Wikipedias reliability is just as effective as that of a profitable encyclopedia that is written by experts. Many feel as if Wikipedia isnt a reliable enough sources because it contains articles written based on authors interpretations of research that other have done. Schools sometimes do not allow their student to find research or facts on Wikipedia because they second-guess Wikipedias cr foreshortenability as a whole. Some questions that might come into play is, why wouldnt you cite the original source, and what relevance does someone elseinterpretation have? Even though anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is still reviewed and their vandalism program and bots that search for errors remove inaccurate information quickly. For the most part, you have extremely small chances of finding treacherous and inaccurate information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia to a fault gives blue text indicates links to other Wikipedia entries or to sources for the entry to help the reader go more into perspicaciousness about their topic. Encyclopedias are mainly written for people who do not know a great deal about a specific field and would like to find out more.With Wikipedia being that online non profitable encyclopedia it allows people to search any subject and conveys enough info rmation to a reader who knows undersize or nothing about the subject. For example on the Wikipedia website I searched for credible information about Michael Jordan. In the article Michael Jordan(2013), from Wikipedia informs the general public about the legacy of Michael Jordan. The authors provide knowledgeable facts about his early years in life, his stats and game averages and in addition include references to support their facts.Their purpose is to give as much knowledgeable and supportive facts about Michael Jordans career and life. The article targets and helps any user looking to find information about Michael Jordan and Wikipedia does this all by citing its sources and using references. A great example of a way Wikipedia is a reliable source is the picture is figure 6, shows a plaque of Michael Jordans achievements at the United Center. Wikipedia also has through out the text blue highlighted text that can lead the reader to links to other Wikipedia entries or sources tha t relate to the subject of choice.Wikipedia has lead me to believe that it is a very reliable source because of its citing and credible facts I received about Michael Jordans career. Wikipedia lead me to new facts about Michael Jordans career such as, During the Bulls playoff run in 1993, controversy arose when Jordan was seen gambling in Atlantic City, New Jersey, the night before a game against the Knicks. In that same year, he admitted to having to click $57,000 in gambling losses(14).With Wikipedia bring up this problem about Michael Jordans life and citing where it came from and giving me alternate links that lead me more into perspicaciousness with this problem proves that Wikipedia is reliable. Some come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has a weakness and is not a reliable source because it is an open source website which means anyone can edit it. Its weakness is what makes it so great. Anyone can edit it. This brings a huge variety of information as well as great depth an d large bibliographies. Wikipedia also goes above and beyond to correct and edit sources have citations and staff are always checking edits.In Wikipedias disclaimer that may it apparent that Wikipedia may be inaccurate and misleading and it is ultimately they users decision and to use their judgment call. But how is some random website that is Googled up more reliable then Wikipedia? In my personalised experience Wikipedia has lead me to valuable and reliable information about the topic at hand and has gave me pictures, facts and sources to back my information up with. Works Cited Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Wikimedia tail end Inc. ,1 Apr. 2013. Web. 10Apr. 2013. Michael Jordan. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. , 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2013.