# data[].attributes.body
Should Wikipedia continue their "free" user accessibility? (Will they still remain credible?)

# data[].attributes.headline
Context/Build-up To The Main Problem (What is Wikipedia? What's Going On?)

# data[].attributes.subject
Context/Build-up To The Main Problem (What is Wikipedia? What's Going On?)

# data[].attributes.body
The Wikipedia website, as itself, is already a fast way to obtain information

Allows any user (Yes...any) to post and edit any articles published

Credibility and fact-checking on the reliability of these articles are not often and cannot be updated "instantly"

Articles may suffer from bias and not be true; contradictory to other articles

# data[].attributes.body
Wikipedia has been around for quite some time; founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, January 15th, 2001

According to MIT Technology Review, Wikipedia is actually the 6th most widely used website in the world

Wikipedia starts to go under fire/heat for its information being "unreliable"

# data[].attributes.body
Wikipedia would become more creditable

With more accurate data/information, it can encourage readers to go further with their research using their references and notes

Wikipedia can gain more continuity, and not become a "stepping stone" into research

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers (or educators) and professionals on the subject may not be able to rectify any lingering misleading information

May be hard to transition from an "open-editing" source to a restricted/more closed permission source

# data[].attributes.body
Upon further research, many individuals disliked and true nature of unreliability due to its "open editing" policy.

Raised concerns about potential vandalism (changing the article's original text to derive away from its original purpose) and the accuracy of the information.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for taking the time to read this Padlet about my Business Research.

This was made thanks to the contributions of Kingsley Tiet (me) and Manting Wang (Amazing Helper!)

# data[].attributes.headline
What's Wrong With Using Wikipedia? (People's Opinions/Thoughts)

# data[].attributes.subject
What's Wrong With Using Wikipedia? (People's Opinions/Thoughts)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There’s nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you’re looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

# data[].attributes.body
Wikipedia is truly convenient for finding "quick" information.

- You can use it as a way to start-up research or get a sense of knowledge

Be cautious when using Wikipedia as your main source of information!

- Since Wikipedia is an open source website that anyone has the access to edit anything published, this can lead to potential misleading information to be posted!

Make sure the articles/sections you read at least have some form of a citation!

- You're never entirely sure if the information you've been reading is exactly from a "credible" source or was this information made up, so always make sure to check for citations!

# data[].attributes.headline
It Takes a Village To Combat a Fake News Army: Hoaxes and Problem At Hand With Possible Solutions

# data[].attributes.subject
It Takes a Village To Combat a Fake News Army: Hoaxes and Problem At Hand With Possible Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly. (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike at social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, the people who respond to reports of harassment are largely unpaid volunteers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It Takes a Village to Combat a Fake News Army: Wikipedia’s Community and Policies for Information Literacy - Zachary J. McDowell, Matthew A. Vetter, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fake news crisis points to a complex set of circumstances in which new media ecologies struggle to address challenges related to authenticity, rhetorical ma…

# data[].attributes.body
1 Montgomery St., Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104 U.S.A.

# data[].attributes.body
Fake news hasn't been just a new problem/issue when it comes to being around and its prevalence on Wikipedia

There are still other pressing matters besides credibility (ex. blatant bias and harassment towards individuals)

----------------------------------

Just Feeding Ignition to the Fire

- In 2016, an individual on Wikipedia by the name Pax Ahimsa Gethen who is a transgender male, was harassed over their decision to transition, and attacked with vulgar language and even death threats that could emotionally harm someone.

----------------------------------

What is Wikipedia Even Doing?

- Wikipedia has installed more measures and "security" on their editing policy

Policy revised to create more of a safe space against "newer" accounts (most prone to vandalize other articles and publishes)

Now requires your account to be 4 days old and have more than 10 edits before you are able to be granted other permissions

- As a Result?

--> Newer users are unable to create any new pages, and edits they create are very heavily guarded and authorized

------------------------------

Fix or Fumble?

Have these changes to user editing done anything to fix the problems?

- Not necessarily; likewise, solutions that are proposed won't often come as a permanent fix, but is still worth the attempt from the company as an effective way to deter those vandalizes and harassers who only signed up with such intent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wikipedia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

# data[].attributes.subject
Wikipedia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wikipedia: the good, the bad and the ugly - Poynter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teen Fact-Checker Pride David walks you through the good, the bad and the ugly of Wikipedia, showing you responsible ways to use the online encyclopedia.

# data[].attributes.body
The Good!

- Wikipedia is known for its accessibility, and easy understandings/grip on subjects

- Like journalism, all articles published must be written from an objective point of view and remain neutral

- All information must be "somewhat" verifiable

The Bad

- Anyone can edit articles and insert misinformation and silly (but untrue) details

- Though, most misinformation is able to be corrected/rectified

- Translations of articles are often difficult and take time

- If corrected, an article may not be updated with its translation; presents untrue facts still

The Ugly

- Hoaxes are common, and well known on Wikipedia's reputation

- Some can be easily removed, but like misinformation, others take years or a while to be removed/found