Wikipedia Update

I tried to update a Wikipedia page about a mall near my home in NJ, Garden State Plaza. I tried to include updated information regarding what the mall has to offer today since the post had been lacking current information. So, based on my knowledge I wrote about new stores that were being created, how stores were expanding, how the new movie theater has changed the mall's traffic, and about different services offered like personal shoppers and professional makeovers. Since I did not look up any of this information, I did not cite it. Bad move. It got taken down and I have to put it back up with citations from various websites to prove what I write is factually correct. Although I feel kind of like an idiot for not citing it, I think it is really good that it got taken down for lack of support. This shows that the editors take their jobs seriously and want to make sure that when people use information from Wikipedia, they are getting factually correct information that can be found elsewhere on the web.

Editing of Wikipedia Articles

In Paul Levinson's book New New Media, he brings up the excellent point of editing Wikipedia articles. I believe that when he wrote this book, Wikipedia did not force users to create an account in order to edit the articles. Now, however, an account on Wikipedia is necessary in order to make edits. Before, administrators tracked users via their IP address, a set of numbers that are assigned to every computer in different locations, as a way of identifying with each computer user. Levinson says that once an account has been created, Wikipedia uses that to track users. But, neither of these methods are a good way to keep track of vandals. Anyone could create a different account name and easily have access. Or, especially those living on a college campus, can just go to another location (or building) and log in from there because their IP address is a different number (yet, this could prevent the person living in that location not to be able to edit if the editor gets banned.) As of right now, I don't know what could be a less foolproof method. Maybe tracking both the account and the IP address since that could give a lot of information (especially if they consistently have the same IP address.)


On another note, I did not know that editors/readers are allowed to view every single edit that was made to a Wikipedia article. I think that's a very useful tool because it allows readers and other editors to see what other people are looking for in terms of adding content (or even deleting it.) Great! Now, I have another way to procrastinate from doing my homework.

To Cite or Not To Cite?

I feel like there is a constant battle when writing research based papers about whether or not Wikipedia is an acceptable source. Some teachers and schools support it, while others are very against it. Still, others advise you to use it as a general reference to find more reliable articles that might be cited in the Wikipedia post. But, if you are allowed to use it to get a list of articles referenced in it, why can't you just reference Wikipedia as a source since it ultimately contains the same information?

I understand that some of the information might not be reliable but, at least from my experience, most of the information you get from Wikipedia is general information readily available on other websites, and thus easy to fact check if necessary. I also feel that Wikipedia is typically used as a starting off point if you have no idea what your topic is about. So if you are just using it for general background information referenced later in your paper, why can't you use it? I feel as though students should be able to use is as a source as long as the information cited is supported by later facts. Obviously if the student pulls a fact from Wikipedia that has no logical backing and therefore contradicted later in the paper, the student deserves to get points deducted for not checking his or her facts. However, if you pull a date from Wikipedia that is supported on other websites and follows along the timeline you are referencing then you should be able to use it. I am not advising people to use Wikipedia as the go-to cite for major, extremely important, specific details. However, as an outline or general reference guide, I believe it is a fine starting point.

Did you know that there are few female editors on Wikipedia and they are trying to attract new Wikipedians?

Wikipedia editors met in Berlin