Inventory System: Executive Summary Essay

AbstractThere is improver in popularity and use of the net income for search purposes by schools and students. Popular among the web-based nurture resource is the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses wiki softw atomic number 18 for the creation and qualifying of contents on its site. The use of Wikipedia for research has increased over the years. It is the pieces acclaimed 6th most visited website (Most Popular Websites on the Internet, 2012) . This status is non without its own ch al whizzenges. The main one being that of credibleness. An online encyclopedia that allows anyone to shorten its entries to some, limits its validity. This paper attempts to look at some of the reasons its credibility is in question.Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. It uses a collaborative softwargon known as wiki to facilitate the creation, development, and editing of entries by contributors who do so without pay. It is available in 285 languages with about 100,000 regul arly active contributors. Once connected to the web users stern write and edit articles on the site. Wikipedia has gained much popularity particularly because of its rich info and full accessibility of data. However, owing to its free-spoken-source management style that allows anybody to change contents, there has been a growing concern about Wikipedias credibility as a source of information for academic exercise.Wikipedia was founded as an subdivision of Nupedia, a now-abandoned project to produce a free encyclopedia. Nupedia had an elaborate system of rules of peer review and required highly qualified contributors but the opus of articles was slow. During 2000, Jimmy Wales, founder of Nupedia, and Larry Sanger whom Wales had employed to work on the project, discussed bearings of supplementing Nupedia with a more open, complementary project. Multiple sources suggested that a wiki might allow members of the exoteric to contribute material, and Nupedias first wiki went onlin e on January 10, 2001.There was considerable metro by Nupedias editors and reviewers to the idea of associating Nupedia with a website in the wiki format, so Sanger coined the disclose Wikipedia, which is a portmanteau of wiki (a type of collaborative website, from the Hawaiian word wiki, convey quick) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia was launched on its own domain, wikipedia.com, on January 15. In May 2001, a wave of non-English Wikipedia was launched. (Wikipedia, 2012).Supporters of Wikipedia believe contents are verified for accuracy, and monitored for consistency and coin. Nevertheless, at the rate contents are created and edited about three gazillion in 2008 and presently 21 million accuracy ignorenot match the renovate Voss (2011) stated Edit history and user contributions are auxiliary clues (to the calibre of the site) but very time-consuming to review (p.10). Even the founder of Wikipedia turn out expressed concern over the existence of such inconsistency and inaccura cy of contents. unhomogeneous experts (including founder Jimmy Wales and Jonathan Zittrain, Oxford University) have expressed concern over come-at-able (intentional or unintentional) bias (Wikipedia, 2012).Others contend that because Wikipedia is a huge information resource, which allows open inspection and arguments in which changes are debated, it is a useful source for bookworm work (Smooth & Crovitz, 2011). Many others argue that the errors found on Wikipedia are not un common to errors found in other encyclopedias. For example, In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements in each references work was not so different Wikipedia breaked 162, and Britannica had 123. This was not broadly accepted as the makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, wh ich it claims is only without merit (Woods & Thoeny, 2007, pp. 90-92).A major issue with Wikipedia is that of source authenticity. Since pack are free to create contents from sources at their disposal, some articles may contain unverified and inconsistent information. Sources are not properly cited. Most materials do not meet the criteria of a good source among which are currency of information, impartiality, and evaluating credentials of authors.. This explains why contents are continually edited. Ray and Graeff (2008), historic scholarship is also characterized by possessive individualism. Good professional rehearse requires that ideas and words are attributed to specific historians. A historic work without owners and with duple authors like Wikipedia, is thus almost unimaginable in our professional culture. exploitation Wikipedia saves time owing to its versatility and large information base, some have argued. This is because contributors are more interested in flooding the s ite with information than painstakingly digging deep to en sure quality of contents. Topics in Wikipedia are sometimes treated superficially with the aim of transferring a general and simple pinch across to users. When such an article is cited in a professional research work, it automatically renders the work incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading. Readers do not need to be scholars to get between the lines on Wikipedia. Content is not exactly expert knowledge, it is common knowledge. For example, an article on nuclear reactor will not be anything different from what most people know about nuclear reactors and what the authors imply common people can understand (Keen, 2008).One of the five pillars, which cash in ones chips Wikipedias operations is that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify or distribute. The idea of inviting put downers to serve as authors or editors poses a problem. Not all users are thorough in providing accurate information, and they ar e others who deliberately maul particular articles or post misleading statements. Sometimes, information is posted or edited by people who have little or unequal knowledge of the subject, and as the adage goes, little knowledge is dangerous. Wikipedia has no way in evaluating the credentials of content authors as it is free for all.Even though these content are edited, one can never be sure how many errors have been corrected. According to Voss (2004), as more people read about an article, the more errors are emended some might say. However, one can hardly be sure how many qualified people have read an article and how many errors remain. Edit wars sometimes overhaul in Wikipedia. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or group of contributors) repeatedly edit each others work based on a particular bias. Using such a content makes the research work the casualty of such wars. In early 2004, Wikipedia set up an arbitrement Committee to settle such disputes (Woods & Thoeny, 2007).Conc lusionWikipedia describes itself as, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As discussed earlier, the site runs on democratic principles allowing anyone to contribute, create, edit, and distribute contents freely. liberate and open access has outlined above, have serious consequences as it exposes texts to vandalism and inconsistency.Wikipedias contents are edited based on individuals perceive opinion or knowledge, unlike other online resources like the Oxford English mental lexicon for example, which was developed by a carefully selected team of experienced professionals. By compromising traditional concept of authorship, Wikipedia affects associated issues of potentiality, originality, and value. When a sources authority and accuracy is in question then the credibility is not guaranteed. Frankly, a site like Wikipedia that allows anyone to add, change, or remove information cannot be credible.ReferencesSpatt, B. (2011). makeup from sources (8th ed.). Bedford St. Martin Pu blishing.Ray, A. and Graeff, E. (2008). Reviewing the Author-Function in the Age of WikipediaWoods, D. and Thoeny, P. (2007). Wikis for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley Publishing, Inc.Smoot W.S. and Crovitz D. (2009). Wikipedia Friend, Not Foe, in English Journal 98.3Keen, A. (2008). The furor of the Amateur How Todays Internet is Killing Our Culture. Bantam dell Publishing GroupVoss J. (2004). Measuring Wikipediahttp/www.wikipedia.orghttp/www.mostpopularwebsites.net