User:Iarbi002

Thinking about Wikipedia

1) What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?

I believe Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality is very similar to my own definition of neutrality. Neutrality, according to Wikipedia’s terms, is the act of presenting information that is unbiased, which can be accomplished by drawing info from multiple sources. Even though such definition is the same I would present if someone asked me what being neutral means, the means through which such “neutrality” is accomplished varies when it comes to my personal experience and what Wikipedia expects from its authors. For an author to be neutral, following the Wikipedia’s ideals, he/she should always utilize several reliable sources to get very well informed on the topic to be discussed, covering all possible aspects of the topic in discussion. By doing that, the author would present different views on the topic, remaining neutral. On the other hand, my personal experience with “neutrality” does not require any previous research for it to be accomplished. Whenever I have to remain neutral on a topic, I simply do not state any preferences I might have, keeping the topic open for discussion. I tend not to previously research on whatever the subject might be and simply refrain from stating my opinion, which could more than likely be biased.

2) What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?

Wikipedia allows for users to research about multiple different topics of their choice, which consequently leads to the dissemination of learning. Moreover, Wikipedia allows for a progression in the quality of content present on the website by allowing users to edit each other’s work. Also, Wikipedia contributes to the globalization process by providing its users with articles in different languages, allowing people from all around the world to use such search tool. However, Wikipedia also has its limitations. Since the articles posted on it can be written and edited by anyone, not all information presented on it might be accurate: authors might present information that is not backed by facts and may be incorrect. Furthermore, not all information presented on Wikipedia might be neutral. Authors could have different agendas, which could lead to info presented on the site to be biased. Some authors may try to favor certain points of views over others, especially when the writer does not have enough knowledge on the topic being discussed. Therefore, not all information presented on Wikipedia can be trusted.

3) On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?

When writing an article, the author should always make sure to attribute all the information he/she is presenting to reliable, published sources in order to make his/her work more credible. Some examples of reliable, published sources authors could use are peer reviewed and scientific articles, books published by well-known publishers, and academic journals. On the other hand, sources like blogs, social media websites, non-neutral news websites, and personal websites are not part of such reliable, published sources. If these "bad sources" are utilized, one's article might not be as accurate and neutral as it should be. By citing any of the sources that should be excluded, the author might present information that favor a side of the topic more than the other, which could make the article biased. Also, the info provided by such sources might not be up-to-date, which would make the article outdated. Consequently, the public should not trust all the information being presented by the author. Furthermore, both the author's and Wikipedia's credibility would be harmed if such sources are used. Therefore, using those sources should be avoided.

4) If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

If Wikipedia had been written 100 years ago, the information provided to the public would not be as accurate as it is nowadays. A hundred years ago, authors did not have the same amount of sources available for them to research from: the list of works available was definitely smaller. Consequently, the information being presented would be not as neutral as it is currently. In addition, 100 years ago, writers did not have the same ease and readiness when researching on a certain topic. Without the internet, it was probably a lot harder to learn about a topic one would like to become more knowledgeable on to write about. Conversely, if Wikipedia was written 100 years from now, all the information provided would probably be more accurate since I believe more discoveries would have been made on topics authors write about and discuss today. More sources would be available for writers to draw information from, which would not only make the articles more neutral, but also allow information to be presented more in depth.