Wikipedia Editing Assignment

I recently updated the Wikipedia stub: High-quality feed block as part of my E-Portfolio assignment for ALES204. The ease of accessibility to editing such pertinent information in my field of study is very interesting, at the very least, seeing as I have not yet completed my degree in Animal Health, yet I can still contribute to my field by providing information to the field and community. This open system of linking and providing information to the general masses makes finding and learning  new things easier, as it is by the world, for the world.

For the project, the first step of finding an incomplete Wikipedia stub was simple enough; search for "Wikipedia Stubs" and choose. Actually editing the page with pertinent and supported information was the challenge. Any information, images or facts that were to be added to the Wikipedia stub must be supported and cited with peer reviewed or primary information. Despite being a bit of work, adding this information was also a learning experience. Looking for research and facts pertinent to the topic led to more things learned by myself, so in posting information for the public to have access to and learn from, I learned a few new things myself.

Image: Alexander Bautista. (Screen shot) (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76113823@N08/7008859949/in/photostream

 

It is also understandable although, the consequences and drawbacks of having such a vast wealth of information open to public access for editing and alterations. Anyone is capable of accessing and editing the information, from experts of specific fields or children who simply know how to make an account and would do things for the sake of doing them, as well as undergraduate students who wish to share new findings, to individuals with no academic background who want to share something they 'believe' is fact or true with not background or solid evidence. This is the advantage and problem with Wikipedia; it is a double edged sword. It is a place where all information can appear, whether it is validated and supported information, or baseless with no supported evidence. For example, a high school chemistry student could post some "unique" findings he observed in his lab, where it is very possible that the "unique" findings were simply a result of human error. The good part of Wikipedia lies where information can be moderated, scrutinized and corrected by the public as well. Such work is currently being done by my ALES204 class by my peers, such as Jasveer. Regardless of this fault, Wikipedia remains as a vault of information that many people access on a regular basis, information for the world, by the world.