The wikipedia site is a place where people can contribute knowledge that they have to share with the global community. The wikipedia website has become an integral part of our society, and it plays a huge role in how we find information about everything from celebrities to global events. This essay will explore wikipedia as a site of knowledge production, examining what wikipedia means for today’s world and why this article should be read by anyone interested in learning more about wikipedia!
Wikipedia has become a point of debate within the field of education, especially in academic settings. According to Boyd, Wikipedia is an unsuitable knowledge source due to its susceptibility to being changed at any time by anybody (765). Credibility has been cited as one of the most significant reasons why students should avoid using Wikipedia. One reason for this is that much of the data on the site cannot be verified.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $12
Furthermore, sources utilized on the site are seldom referenced (Boyd, 766). Despite these problems, Boyd emphasizes in her paper that pupils frequently use Wikipedia as a study destination. Students continue to utilize Wikipedia due to its accessibility, despite teachers’ efforts to persuade them not to (Boyd, 766). It may be inferred from Boyd’s research that one difficulty with Wikipedia is that it does not assist students in understanding the significance of establishing credibility in their work. Citation is essential since it demonstrates the validity of the statements made, particularly in academic projects.
Boyd also makes the case that Wikipedia’s usage as a source of knowledge creation may be utilized for good (765). The author states that, in comparison to published works, the site is more frequently full with information regarding events. She points to the discussion boards that are linked to every Wikipedia site as a excellent source of additional information.In response to this, it may be claimed that the Internet has a wealth of information. However, much of it is skewed and untrue. Wikipedia isn’t any different from other websites. Whether the site provides a lot of information or not, the fact that it can’t be verified makes it an unsuitable option for academic research and knowledge creation.
Suffice it to say, Wikipedia has a number of viewpoints. As a result, the site has provided a venue where users may view not only current and up-to-date information but also how knowledge has developed over time.According to Boyd, even if there are benefits of Wikipedia, instructors must emphasize that the site cannot be used for knowledge creation (767). Teachers have failed to adequately explain why students should not utilize Wikipedia as an academic reference, according to the author. A full and detailed explanation would ensure that fewer kids use the website, according on the author.
In response to this, it may be acknowledged that facilitators and instructors have not adequately explained why Wikipedia is unsuitable as an academic research platform. Many professors simply advise students against using the site for research without going into further detail. Students, on the other hand, can discover subject matter and arguments for their essays from the site, in light of its reputation for source credibility.
The reliability of crowd-sourced information cannot always be summed up as incorrect, and Boyd endorses the stated thesis (768). The fact that the material has not been verified and validated gives the site a negative reputation. Wikipedia’s ability to combine diverse content from all around the world and make it readily available to the public is one of its strengths. Even if it has flaws, Wikipedia may be an important learning tool when utilized correctly.
The article “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production” by Danah Boyd discusses how educators are against using Wikipedia as a good source. She explains how most pupils are advised to avoid the site at all costs, according to their instructors, because they believe it is deceptive and incorrect.
On the other hand, Boyd claims that analysis have shown Wikipedia’s content to be as trustworthy as, if not more so than, traditional sources. She also discusses several of Wikipedia’s features that people aren’t aware of, such as its discussion forums. Over the years, Wikipedia has matured and should now be considered a trustworthy resource and used in schools.
Wikipedia is usually one of the first websites that students search for while conducting research on the internet. Students are frequently drawn to click on the site, but their educators quickly remind them that Wikipedia should not be trusted as a source of information. They refer to it as false, dangerous, and untrustworthy.
In her essay, Boyd claims that teachers continually urge their pupils to avoid Wikipedia at all costs. Students shouldn’t be permitted to view the site as appealing. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. According to some studies, Wikipedia’s content is just as credible as, if not more so than, traditional resources.
In the essay “Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production,” Danah Boyd claims that many educators and instructors advise pupils to avoid using Wikipedia because the data might be unreliable. It’s because anybody can contribute or modify information at any time.
Teachers advise students not to trust Wikipedia, yet they ignore the educational potential of the website. Dana Boyd claims that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as encyclopedia Britannica. Despite instructors’ claims that students do not utilize Wikipedia, they do so anyhow. Educators usually advise their pupils to use other reliable websites when looking for information. Students explain that they obtain information from Wikipedia and sites additional websites as sources of knowledge.
Professors are generally mannerless when it comes to checking where students acquired their information. Many adults and educators are unaware of the benefits of Wikipedia or other internet resources. As a result, they may occasionally provide inaccurate details about themselves.
“Wikipedia is a terrible website to use since they don’t always reference their sources… you have no idea who wrote it” (765). The statement, made by a 15-year-old girl from Massachusetts and referred to in the essay ” Wikipedia as a Site of Knowledge Production,” was previously quoted. Danah Boyd, an NYU professor, notes the website page for the reader’s convenience.
A modern educational environment depends on students being more aware of how Wikipedia operates, the various ways they have been taught about it, and its influence on today’s learning society. In Danah Boyd’s essay, she makes it clear that people find Wikipedia to be a horrible website to use and urge students not to utilize it at all costs. However, Boyd does bring attention to how slightly things are changing, in addition to the fact that students were repeatedly instructed that it is not a trustworthy source of information.
“When individuals disregard Wikipedia, they frequently point to a lack of trust and credibility, even though studies have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as credible as, if not more reliable than, other traditional sources like Encyclopedia Britannica (765). Boyd makes it clear that teachers persuade students to go to the library in order to obtain information for papers and try to ignore most digital resources of knowledge.
Although many schoolbooks and reading materials that are kept in libraries across the world are out of date because of the rapid change in the world today, it is clear that many textbooks and books kept in libraries are. I strongly agree with Danah Boyd’s writing because she brings this issue to light and shows how educators and pupils have always stereotyped Wikipedia, whether or not it is a good source for information.
The following study attempts to explain how Wikipedia has influenced the production and consumption of knowledge over time. It provides an overview of the inner workings that make Wikipedia function, as well as a look at its complex power relationships in order to identify potential structural manifestations of article prejudice.
Five Wikipedia articles about a current social-political event are chosen for study based on the significance of the knowledge gap, which is the lack of significant sources on an event between the publication of news and further academic research.
First, according to Laclau’s view of discourse as a system of signs that acquire their meaning through articulation, which is a conflict between individuals whose aim is to impose a certain understanding of the world, two aspects of information storage within Wikipedia articles are investigated. The work of Kriplean et al. on power plays, which is a type of content dispute in which groups of contributors attempt to claim legitimate control over material through Wikipedia’s policy discourse, is used by the system to analyze and categorize discussions within Wikipedia discussion pages.
Furthermore, based on Van Dijk’s view that macro-notions such as group or institutional power and dominance, as well as social inequality do not directly translate to micro-notions such as text, talk, or interpersonal communication; and his belief that distinct text production is influenced by existing knowledge and individual or shared general attitudes or ideas.
Because they better represent such social cognition models or mental representations than the characteristics of disputing editors’ text, Wikipedia articles with these sources are chosen for study.
The domains of all the utilized references are obtained from the selected articles using a basic python script and then manually coded according to their geographical origin and type, such as newspaper, financial institution, government or non-governmental organization, academic paper etc.
The data is filtered and analyzed in search of potential patterns that reveal cognitive bias, which might influence the paper’s overall conclusion. Based on the study of power relations within Wikipedia, the analysis of content disputes and their origins and types, and a literature review on how Wikipedia works and is defined.
Even if Wikipedia provides new methods for collecting, storing, and publishing information, it is still highly reliant on traditional journalistic models that have their own inherent types of bias.
Creating knowledge is one of the reasons you’re assigned research-based writing in college. And, as a popular resource that you may already use, it can help you with this endeavor—though not necessarily in the way you might think. Wikipedia, the free wiki “encyclopedia,” can provide information to assist you with and model some of the activities frequently seen in college-level research-based writing.
Your Wikipedia usage, like that of any other resource, is determined by how and why you use it. The objective of this chapter is to demonstrate how and why you might utilize Wikipedia to assist you with research-based composition writing assignments for your first year class. It offers alternatives for using—and not using—Wikipedia as a source or a process guide.
I’m hoping that you might find it useful to know how I’ve always done things, especially since many of my colleagues believe that they should not use Wikipedia as a source for writing tasks. For the first, I assumed that you would utilize Wikipedia as a source for writing assignments regardless of cautions against it, therefore it is more important to address ways to make good usage of it than to ignore it (and ignoring it precludes some potentially beneficial uses of Wikipedia anyhow). The second premise is based on the fact that research-based essaywriting approaches which many composition instructors advocate may be bolstered by using Wikipedia.
This implies that on a topic as complex as wordplay, the organization of your essay’s structure will need to proceed from an examination of its subject matter and surrounding issues. In this example, for instance, Wikipedia can assist in illustrating the following: (1) recursive revision based on idea development, (2) textual production based on participation in a discussion rather than isolated thinking, and (3) research-based production rather than only criticism).
The steps involved in editing a Wikipedia article are similar to those involved in producing good research-based writing. Both entail submitting ideas in writing and responding to input based on audience members’ perceptions of the usefulness, accuracy, and value of those ideas.
Before I go on, I’d like to make two points. All first-year writing instructors approach research-based composition in different ways, demanding that students create various sorts of assignments for term papers. As a result, the recommendations outlined in this essay must be adapted to match your specific course and assignment. My aim is not to distract you with one right way to do research-based writing. There is no such thing as a single correct method of doing so. Nor am I implying that research-based writings should be formatted similarly to Wikipedia articles.
They should not. Wikipedia articles fall into a distinct category from academic research-based writing. Wikipedia aims to simulate an encyclopedia, therefore articles must be written in “NPOV,” or neutral point of view; instead of attempting to persuade readers to believe one is correct, they are intended to represent all significant sides of a problem (Bruns 113–114).
The majority of first-year composition research-based tasks request that you develop and advance your own standpoint on a subject by drawing on and reacting to appropriate outside sources. While you might be expected to present several viewpoints on a topic for such an assignment, you will frequently be required to argue for one, thus your writing will most likely be more overtly persuasively argued than a Wikipedia article.
Despite the significant distinctions, I believe that some of the methods frequently used to write a Wikipedia article are also frequently utilized in writing research-based college course assignments: reviewing, conversing, editing, and sharing. “Wikipedia,” as Australian researcher Axel Bruns points out, “is closely linked to the real-world academic exchange of information.” As a result, we will consider Wikipedia both as a product (i.e., a source) and as a representation of process (i.e., a guide to practices).
Knowing how to utilize (and not to use) Wikipedia as a source can help you avoid wasting time on Wikipedia in unproductive ways while also demonstrating the value of sources as more than just static products for you to insert into your writing. To put it another way, seeing sources as something that may help you think rather than simply tools for getting someone else to do your thinking for you emphasizes the significance of engaging with them—of viewing them as potential sources rather than simply passive providers.
When you know the techniques involved and understand that these activities are essential to knowledge production, doing research-based writing may be less intimidating—and more fulfilling and enjoyable. Nobody commanded Wikipedia contributors to carry on as they do. They conduct certain behaviors in order to reach their objective: adding to our understanding of a topic—the same goal you have for the research-based writing you do in first year composition.
Not all Wikipedians follow these procedures in the same order or fashion, but successful ones do. Even after their text is shared, the most active contributors continue to read, respond, and edit it over and over. When their writing is published, the process doesn’t end there. That’s just the start of it. If you approach your research-based work in a similar way, you’ll undoubtedly embark on a knowledge-generating journey with it.