Wikipedia Versus Textbooks

     Surprisingly enough, according to the article titled "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information", people are using Wikipedia as one of the top websites for Ebola information. Is this a good thing? A site well known for not having accurate information is now being trusted by many in order to educate one's self on a rare/ deadly diseases.    

     Comparing Wikipedia to textbooks tends to bring out many personal opinions. While Wikipedia carries a reputation of containing false information, textbooks tend to be a source of learning that aren't updated for years at a time. Information is constantly changing and needed updated. However, a lot of school couldn't afford to buy new textbooks every year.

     After attending class and discussing Wikipedia, I learned that it doesn't provide us with false information and that it's closely monitored by people whose job is to make sure people aren't putting incorrect information  on the site. Wikipedia provides great information and is an effective way to learn. Also, it would save all the money that's wasted on textbooks (that a lot of teachers don't use half of the time.) The money could be spent on new technology!

 

                                                                                                      

 

 

Now when people ask about the safety of using Wikipedia I can let them know what I have learned about how cool the site actually is. I believe Wikipedia should be used to help kids further educate themselves in school because it can be reliable, it is one of the most well-known sites, and students can even contribute to the site by going in and editing Wiki pages when they see information that needs corrected.

all evidence from above is from Wikipedia On Ebola Article

My only concern for kids using Wikipedia is that they won't be able to tell the difference between what information is accurate and what's not. 

Link For Cartoon