The feedback received regarding Wikipedia was amazing! The first idea that caught my idea was concerning the relationship between the search engine used (Google) and Wikipedia. When searching for information or definitions students use Google to find out this information. Wikipedia is usually the first result on Google that comes up. However, the other results that are displayed could also be inaccurate but since Wikipedia is known to be incorrect we look at that website in a different mindset. One of my comments said “of course, I am also aware of many of the methods used to position search engine results so I’m not even satisfied by reviewing the top 10 returns because I know many of them have paid someone to hold onto those top spots”. The results on Google do not show up in order of accuracy or correctness, in stead they are the websites that have paid the most money to be there. If I created a websites with all incorrect information and paid Google to put it at the top of their search engine results, would people believe the information is correct, just because its ranking on Google?
The second comment that interested me was regarding the negative motion of lack of authority and the ongoing editing wars on Wikipedia. The lack of authority is the issue behind this websites inaccuracy. Allowing anyone to post anything on Wikipedia leads to troublemakers to post incorrect information. This could be harmful for the users, damaging their paper or even altering the knowledge they possess. This inaccuracy influence peoples perception of Wikipedia in a negative way. The only way to decrease this risk associated with Wikipedia’s information is to monitor who posts what. In my opinion, they could limit who posts information on Wikipedia by only allowing education professionals to post items.
The third comment that I did not think of was concerning the positive aspect of Wikipedia, users participation together. The idea that random people are working together to create information for others is a positive thing. Creative minds working together can in fact construct a great outcome of information. I agree with this because the idea that people are coming together to create things for other people’s usage is awesome.
The late statement I liked was “Plus, who’s to say that everything we read in a history text book is true either”? The information in textbooks could also be wrong. The eyewitness or the reader can in fact misinterpret what actually happened. You never know. There is always a possibility that an important action or event in history was interpreted wrong or was never written down. People just automatically believe what they read from textbooks and academic sources. But this information could also be incorrect you never know!