I use wikipedia. I know what you’re thinking. Believe me. I’ve heard the arguments about Wikipedia. They are valid points. Wikipedia may not be the MOST credible source of information, but it does represent a process of perfecting knowledge. Which, ironically, is the same process that the scientific community uses. You will never meet a scientist who believes, sincerely, that he has completed or perfected a perfect piece of knowledge. All scientists understand that more conclusions lead to more questions. The wiki structure supports a dynamic improvement of human knowledge.
Satirist Stephen Colbert pokes fun at the idea of wikipedia in this segment on his popular television show.
Colbert raises good points about why Wikipedia can be harmful. It is easy to understand why many teachers, librarians, and other academic figures scoff so loudly and enthusiastically at the idea that Wikipedia’s information is handled less than authoritatively. The banning and blocking of Wikipedia as a resource represents a lack of faith that many educators have in their own student’s ability to think critically about material. Perhaps, that is why so many textbooks sound god-like in their delivery of information about topics that are actually subject to a ton of current debate.
I contend, however, Wikipedia’s strength is in its unique lack of authority. It gives democracy to education. Isn’t that a good thing?.
I really like your voice in this post! Continuing to write this way will really convey your personality in this blog! You might make some connective links or embed media related to things/people you mention, such as Colbert.