Is Wikipedia credible

                    The Wikipedia Page on the Arizona Diamondbacks has 2,086 edits so far.  For being a page that started only 13 years ago this is a lot, with there being an edit every 2.14 days.  Pages for sports team need a lot of edits because their history is changing every day, even each time player is traded or anything overall changes.  I personally am a huge Diamondbacks fan; and after carefully reading the Wikipedia web page on the Diamondbacks just about all the information is correct.  Using this page as a sample, we can answer the question, “is Wikipedia a good source for collective intelligence?”

                Henry Jenkins writes in his article What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About New Media Literacies, (part 1), “According to a recent study from the Pew Center for Internet & American Life, more than half of all teens have generated media content and roughly a third of teens online have shared content they produced with others. In many cases these teens are actively involved in what we are calling participatory cultures.”  So more than half of teenagers are actively involved in the online intelligence media websites.  This shows the amount of collective intelligence there currently is on the web. With the Wikipedia page about the Diamondbacks, about 82 percent of the edits on the page were major edits (this can be seen in the picture at the end). This is a pretty big amount.  If 82 percent of the edits were major edits, that that means 1,711 of the edits were major edits.   With this many edits, I feel like the answer to the question “Is Wikipedia a good source for collective intelligence?” is yes.  I thoroughly read thru the Wikipedia webpage for the Diamondbacks, and I could not honestly find one thing wrong with the page.  I also did some research from the Diamondbacks website and everything is accurate.

                Now this being said, I do not believe every page will be 100 percent accurate, and this is also why I do not think Wikipedia is a good source for school projects and good sources to back up information.  For one, there are edits on each page all the time, so what is information now on the page could be gone in a matter of days.  And second, it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not used for sources in the first place.  But, Henry Jenkins writes in part 2 of What Wikipedia Can Teach us about New Media Literacies, “On the other hand, participants are encouraged to see themselves as members of a knowledge community and to trust their collaborators to fill in information they don’t know and challenge their claims about the world”.  So should we trust what is in there because we don’t know it? I say yes because thousands of people are reading this and editing this, so if there is bad information in there, it is most likely to be taken down.



Works Cited:

“D-backs History | History.” Arizona Diamondbacks. N.p., 14 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (PART ONE).” Confessions of an AcaFan., 26 June 2007. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.

Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (PART TWO).”     Confessions of anAcaFan. 26 June 2007 Web. 14 Feb. 2014.


One comment on “Is Wikipedia credible

  1. The first paragraph does a good job explaining why the Diamondback’s Wikipedia page might be an interesting case study: as a sports team, new information is continually being released. The first paragraph could be improved by organizing the information to improve the flow (it is reading somewhat jumbled as is), and starting with a sentence that will attract the reader’s attention. The post does a good job of introducing Jenkins and the reading early on, as well as linking out to Jenkins’s site in the text. The second paragraph could be stronger if it clearly defined collective intelligence for the reader who might not be familiar with the term. The text engages with the images and data of the Wikipedia page, though the connection between the data and the analysis is unclear: Why would having a high percentage of major edits make for a more accurate page? How does Jenkins’s quote about teenage contribution to collective intelligence represent collective intelligence as a whole? More explanation and connections between analysis and data would help the reader follow your main ideas. The Jenkins quote in the last paragraph is related to the information in that paragraph, but there was an opportunity to draw more from that quote. Try to end a post by leaving your reader with a good sense of your main points.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s