I'm sure that most people have wished that they were able to reliably use Wikipedia at one time or another in their life, it's quick, it's easy and it's there. But I am sure that just as many people have been told not to site Wikepedia in a paper because it's not reliable. Although I do believe that Wikepedia is becoming more reliable, because of the methods used for source-checking, it still remains that anyone can edit Wikepedia. The same can be said about the website Helium, which maintains an editing and posting process similar to Wikepedia, where the entire world is essentially the editors of the posts.
 |
| Picture credits justinrussell |
For example, on the “Most reliable forms of birth control” page a user notes that “condoms are up to 97 percent effective. Problems can occur only if the condom slips or if it tears during the intercourse” (Farrah), and while this may be true in regards to condom effectiveness, these are not the ONLY ways problems can occur. Other problems with condom usage are the improper application of the condom, because as stated by the CDC , (which is a government agency, that checks and updates their data on a regular basis by qualified workers) “if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently” ("Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"). This needs to be noted because the improper application of condoms is indeed a problem, especially with younger people and new “users”.
In my personal opinion I still believe that websites such as these are valuable, BUT as a beginning start. These should not be used as primary sources, but they should be used to help a person to learn which direction to look in. But as these sources are not always reliable because of their open-access, their facts should ALWAYS be checked.
Farrah, Ville. "Most reliable forms of birth control ."Helium. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sep 2010. <http://www.helium.com/items/1944825-most-effective-contraceptives-best-contraceptives-safest-contraceptives-contraception-info>.
"Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, February 8, 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm>.
I think you're right about wikipedia and all those sites just like it. If you want just quick information on something, you can get it from wikipedia, but deeper investigation needs to be done if you want more facts. Your example is perfect for showing this. Even though condoms are said to be 97% effective, the wikipedia article probably does not go into much depth about it, such as the things you stated in your blog. Wikipedia is more like a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
ReplyDelete