I’m glad to finally hear professionals
discuss the controversy behind using Google and Wikipedia in research. Often,
students are told what not to do when
writing a paper and are rarely told what is acceptable when it comes to modern research. Rather, in “Googlepedia,”
the author evaluates two modern styles of research be giving millennials constructive
criticism in their research attempts and revamping their current way of
gathering information. In my high school courses, information literacy was
a hot topic, but the teachers and
librarians steered the conversation away from Wiki and Google and toward
Encyclopedias and Databases. Throughout my education, I have always heard
“Don’t use Wikipedia as a source. Try to find primary sources for your
research.” My teachers and professors never gave me the option to explore the
world of Wikipedia, so I never contemplated using the references and works
cited to find my primary resources. It was refreshing to read that “you are
going to use [Google and] Wikipedia as a source for writing assignments
regardless of cautions against [them], so it is more helpful to address ways to
use [them] than to ignore [them]” (McClure 3). By simply using Wikipedia as
route to get a general background in a topic or using quotation marks around
key words in a google search, it is possible to sort through a massive amount
of information and formulate a strong research paper. Although, we all know
that databases and up-to-date library books are the most safe way to gather
this information.
An interesting thought occurred to
me while reading about modes of research. I trust most things I read on the
internet, but I should be paying more attention to the bias of the writing.
Like Susan, I am quick to judge a source as the truth and ignore the bias. With
new technological advancements and evolving sources for research, we not only
have to be educated on how to find, use, and decipher information, but we must
sort through good and bad material because there is an immense quantity of it. It
may not be as much work as walking through a library and flipping through a
million and one books, but the risk of using an online search engine as a
resource is heightened because many websites parade around as trustworthy resources
without scientific data to back up their claims.
In the end, after this information
was presented, I still choose to not trust Wikipedia for my research. In the Nutrition
and Dietetics Program, I write papers over foods and diseases that have popular
misconceptions. If I opt for the quick google answer, my thesis will most
likely be incorrect. I choose to rely on databases like SLUth to meet my
research needs because I can trace the source and trace the information back to
its original format.
I completely agree with what Sarah had to say. When writing a research paper, it's very tempting to use the quickest information you can find, regardless of where it came from. When reading McClure's article "Googlepedia," it brought a refreshing insight on other ways those sources can be used. Unfortunately, Wikipedia allows random users to make contributions to its website, therefore some information can formulate a weak paper or as Sarah said "a weak thesis." What's interesting is her take on how she relates her major into this article. We can also use this for a major such as myself, when writing lap reports and needing to use primary sources from reliable and credible scientists.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what McClure said about still using Google and Wikipedia, but using it as a source to form a generalized list of topics that you can further research in more reliable databases, like as Sarah said "SLUth." I also completely agree with what Sarah said about the stereotypical response of “Don’t use Wikipedia as a source,” because I was taught the exact same way. But, as Sarah said, it is refreshing to use a source that we were told not to. McClure’s CRAAP method is one of the great ways in order to determine if a source is worth using when writing a research paper or a paper that is important. Overall, Sarah sums up the information in a way that we all feel is correct.
The internet is one of the most valuable tools when looking to write a research paper, or quite frankly any paper at all. While this may be true, it is exceptionally important for an individual to take into consideration the number of fake sources. When you go to google, and type in a phrase, or a string of key search words, the most common source pops up; often times, however, this source is Wikipedia. Over the years, there has been an immense amount of controversy, all centered around the unreliability of Wikipedia due to the fact individuals can edit any page they wish. This may be seen in the article from earlier this week discussing the Wikipedia hoax, which occurred when two boys from Wash U made up a believed to be real individual, who was in fact fake.
ReplyDeleteI believe Wikipedia should be an individual’s last resort if anything; it should be used for nothing more than simply fact checking with other sources. If I am writing a paper I found it much more beneficial to look at sources that are .gov’s or even .org’s; however, I also believe these sources also tend to have mistakes or irregularities. Due to the irregularities, I believe people would be better off simply using print sources, such as books or research journals.