Wikipedia

            Wikipedia is a reliable source but not an academic source.  The scientific articles are accurate and thus there is no reason to distrust the articles. This can be a slight basis in other types of articles as people who are much interested in the topics write them.  Other people are much focused and especially in academia and have argued on several viewpoints. Leaving out information seems as a form of prejudice.  The longer the articles tend to derive information from other Wikipedia articles, the more people believe that the articles are accurate. It is fine in using Wikipedia to get good ideas but I would prefer to the use of websites and the sources cited in the article. One is eligible to use the sources as part of the cited sources or to derive information from them. However, reference of the Wikipedia in study credentials is improper since Wikipedia is not a convincing or an academic resource (Rys, Meyer & Sebranek, 88). 

            This is true in view of that each person can revise the data derived from it at any moment and though many mistakes are instantly rigid, some mistakes remain unknown.  Wikipedia has good commentaries and attributed ones used for deeper research than common. When doing an educational explore, you should be very careful about the use of Wikipedia.  As its individual qualification affirms that data on Wikipedia, contribute to anybody who need to place information and to the professor of the advertisement not considered (Rys, Meyer & Sebranek, 91).

            Consumers of Wikipedia may understand outmoded information posted by someone who is not and a specialist in the ground or someone who gives mistaken data.  Several years ago, a student wrote on a topic about the confines of Wikipedia and placed an imaginary admission for himself describing a certain mayor in a town in China.  Years later, when one types his forename, or does a theme search on Wikipedia for the mayors of China, you get unreal answers.  Some information on Wikipedia may seem accurate and this is because the experts do not review the entries on the sites and thus there is a significant danger in depending on the source for academic essays (Rys, Meyer & Sebranek, 95). 

            The reality that Wikipedia is not a dependable academic foundation does not signify that it is incorrect using the orientation resources when trying to disseminate you with a certain topic. The Wikipedia library piles with preliminary resources and the librarians in Harvard can direct you to use sources in dissimilar grounds.  These resources can be helpful when one needs setting information from an inscription area (Rys, Meyer & Sebranek, 104).       

The history of Higher education

            This topic tries to show the limitations of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that a disseminated network of volunteers compiles.  Students degrade the site as being full of imprecision. The founder of the Wikipedia site Jimmy Wales sends a message to the college students to stop using the resource for class projects or for serious research. He claims that he gets many emails in a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has messed their academic grades.  He states that the students complain to fail due to the wrong information derived from Wikipedia and the citing it.  He asserts that he do not sympathize with them and recommends them not to cite the encyclopedia (Meyer, 82)

            The managers of the encyclopedia put a fact together that professors can give the students and explain that Wikipedia is not an accurate source. The source is good buy students have to be careful with it in that it gives enough knowledge on what the purpose of the student is. Wales continues to explain that Wikipedia is a model for many uses. I f a person is reading a novel; they can use Wikipedia to get a rapid overview of the account event in order to understand the context (Meyer, 87).

            As Wikipedia has become more popular to students, some professors are putting their great concern about the use of the online encyclopedia. These professors are complaining about the lack of accuracy in the completion of projects, have also discouraged, and hindered students from using it. As instructors were in the approach of reducing the distribution of misinformation, they claimed that though Wikipedia has some importance, mainly on the significance of giving students citable basis, it is not a suitable foundation of reference (Accardi, Drabinski &Kumbier, 184). 

            The group concluded that there was an agreement result on the matter after conferring the harms that the lecturers saw.  They proofed that students cited incorrect information from Wikipedia in papers and in tests. These professors noted that students offer similar incorrect information from Wikipedia.  There was a discussion from the department aiming in banning students from using Wikipedia, but it does not seem suitable. Many Wikipedia sources have suitable bibliographies and this may be a main reason to ignore the interdict (Accardi, Drabinski &Kumbier, 189).

            Wyatt claims that the business branch did not give any penalties for referring to Wikipedia and the main aim of the strategy was to teach and not to be castigatory. He said that he distrusted that a paper discarded for using a Wikipedia annotation but the scholars told not to do it due to many violations that result from abridged grades and failures. The significant approach that professors wish to converse to all students who are taking lessons and presenting their work into the business division in prospect is that they quote Wikipedia at their risk (Accardi, Drabinski &Kumbier, 193).

            He highlighted that the opposition of the group in Wikipedia was not online in life, but unedited in nature and said that the students want to learn to go for excellence data.  A certain English professor at the California University adopted a rule that Wikipedia is not suitable as the main and only reference for anything that is vital to an argument.  In putting more stress in his basis, he claimed to have read a paper about the connection between structuralism and postmodernism where the references were from Wikipedia articles and the writer was not aware that there was the require to understand writing a main work or the significant labor (Accardi, Drabinski &Kumbier, 201).    

            Wikipedia officers agrees and gives a sensible policy that Wikipedia is the perfect place to create any investigate and get a depiction of what the topic talks about but it is not an trustworthy resource. Thus, they recommended that scholars confirm the information they get in Wikipedia alongside other foundations.  As a result, it is important to perform and mention an innovative resource when writing an essay or a test.  It is not wise for students at the institution of higher education level to quote a Wikipedia source (Accardi, Drabinski &Kumbier, 221).  

Conclusion

            On my great concern, there is no information from Wikipedia and other similar sources seem accurate.  The information simply takes the scholars in the wrong way from the approach of gaining data knowledge. Students face a challenge of information having poor eminence.   Creating an advanced opportunity to the scholars is to teach them how to compare other sources and Wikipedia giving the results on which source could be trusted.  The aim of learning these limitations in the history of higher education would be advancing the students skills with the decisive thinking skills to review. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work cited

Accardi, Maria T, Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier. Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods. Duluth, Minn: Library Juice Press, 2010. Internet resource.

Meyer, Susan. Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, 2013. Internet resource.

Van, Rys J, Verne Meyer, and Patrick Sebranek. The Research Writer. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin, 2011. Print.