Week Two Blog: Wikipedia

                During Thursday’s class, I was relieved to know that I was not the only one who used the internet source Wikipedia for my research papers. Even though a number of my high school teachers had told me never to use it, I did it anyways. The reason why Wikipedia isn’t recommended is because trolls (people who go online and like to cause trouble) along with actual researchers and everyone in between have the ability to alter the information on the site, so you cannot be too sure about the information that you are getting from them. I was glad when Amanda told us that Wikipedia wasn’t all that bad, as long as it is used as a starting point, and not as the main source of all your information. She also showed us the correct way to use the system. One of the good things about it is that the site lists its references which in turn can actually lead you to legitimate websites that can give you more in-depth information. Another interesting fact that Amanda taught us is that no matter what type of information you are reading, everything is bias. Regardless of whether or not the information is talking bad about something, even if it is just lacking information about the opposite side of the argument; that counts as a bias. Although the internet as well has specific databases have so much useful information, the best sources to collect information from are scholarly journals because they pretty much contain all of the details about that topic due to the fact that it is written at least six months after the event happened. Not only is the information on databases and scholarly journals useful, but it is also very easy to use. I think the point that Amanda was trying to get across is that, although Wikipedia is very convenient and helpful most of the time, with all of the other legit and expert information we can find on databases, there is no need for us to use Wikipedia as our go to information guide.