article This discusses some of the positive and negative characteristics of Wikipedia. The author
asks the essential question: If Wikipedia is so bad that we caution our students not to use it for academic
work, how can it be so good that much of what you need to know is found there? This question is the
inspiration for the remainder of the article. The first positive aspect of Wikipedia that he mentions is its
currency. If you want to learn about folksonomy you cannot find it in Britannica, but Wikipedia has
an article about that topic. It also adds pages regarding current events quickly, such as the Asian Tsunami
or Hurricane Katrina. However, he goes on to explain how Wikipedia can be viewed as a dumbing down
of academia because no longer do you have to consult with experts when it comes to an issue. In the end,
he concludes however, that a compromise between academia and Wikipedia must occur. Wikipedia is
simply amazing in its detail, currency, and accuracy; however, there is also shallow thinking, debates
over interpretation and the settling of scores. It is a way through which people can learn about what
information is trustworthy and what information is not. Moreover, Wikipedia can be used as a resource
for academia where academia an takes active role in helping to improve Wikipedia and participating in its
wonders. In the end, a middle ground that allows Wikipedia to be used in academic circles, but only
carefully, must result.
The positive points in the article begin with his question stated in the preceding paragraph. It is a
logical procession that if Wikipedia is good enough for general knowledge, why would it not be good for
academic knowledge? Secondly, the fact that Wikipedia updates at lightning fast speeds is a positive
attribute that should be highlighted. However, he explains how this is a dumbing down of information
and I disagree. In a sense, its even an increase in how good the information is because now, instead of
having to only rely on one or two intelligent people, we have hundreds of people with little bits of
information. When added all together into a single Wikipedia page the amount of information vastly
outweighs how much information those two intelligent people know. Furthermore, I agree with his
statement that a medium between the two must occur. Academia can come to accept Wikipedia as a valid
source that can be used for information; however, when dealing with highly technical subjects it should
be not be trusted or used.