What is the organizational strategy for our project? Category/concept, Chronoligcal, hierarchical, alphabetical
Purpose and goal of paper:
After reviewing each resource, what relationships do you detect between them? Do certain resources agree with or complement one another? Do others boldly contradict one another? Perhaps one extends an idea that is proposed in another, or introduces a new spin on a previously discussed concept.
Each person is to post 1–2 specific synthesis suggestions for the presentation to the Synthesis page of the group wiki
NOTE:Reference list in ADP format has been uploaded as an attached file. References are listed below but ADP format didn't paste with the text.
Strategy
The organizational strategy for our project is category / concept. We are looking at a conceptual comparative question that has 3 conceptual questions to answer. In order to effectively answer our main research question we will need to follow an organization by concept strategy where separate ideas are combined to produce a concept and the synthesis leads to a logical conclusion. (Taylor, 2007, p. 149). As an example, it is possible to discuss individual themes related to reliability for online and traditional research sources, compare Wikipedia to traditional scholastic sources, identify characteristics of acceptable scholastic research, and support statements with reliable data (Taylor, 2007). According to Taylor, “the student will have to provide background information on the issue, compare various positions on the topic, state his or her position with supporting reasoning and explanation, and draw a conclusion” (Taylor, 2007).
Purpose and goal
Evaluate Wikipedia on its validity as a scholarly source, as compared to other accepted scholarly sources and to provide our determination that it should not be used as a cited source but is used only in a limited scope or capacity. To identify what is considered reliable for online and traditional research sources, characteristics of acceptable sources, and look at how Wikipedia manages the content. Present a position, include supporting facts and reasoning, and draw a conclusion.
5-8 Synthesis relationships
1. Wikipedia is not a reliable scholarly source.
Wikipedia is not a scholarly source for 2 main reasons. 1 empirically and statistically proven to be less accurate than accepted scholarly resources and 2 even man who designed Wikipedia is not very convincing in his efforts to strive for optimal accuracy. Fairly accurate seems to be good enough for him. I do not believe that to be the case with most scholars. It is less reliable than other references sources - 80 % vs. 95-96 % (Rector, 2007) and 162 vs. 163 errors Wikipedia vs. Britannica (Giles, 2005) (Theresa)
It has a higher prevalence of uncited / unverified facts and statements which is not scholarly and which alludes to a higher percentage of plagiarism which is unacceptable in scholarly work. Authority often cannot be established which is one component of evaluation, and makes information on Wikipedia much harder to evaluate accurately. (Rector, 2007) / (Berinstein, 2006) (Theresa)
Reliability comparison results prove to be greater or lesser based on the subject matter. Although few scientific studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wikipedia compared to alternatives the debate over the reliability of Wikipedia continues. When a comparison on the subject of science was conducted, both Britannica and Wikipedia had four “serious” errors, but comparing factual errors, omissions, or misleading statements indicated greater discrepancies. Wikipedia had 162 errors and Britannica had 123 (Giles, 2005), making Wikipedia “only slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica” (as cited by Fallis, 2008, p. 1666; Badke, 200x, p. 54). Further comparisons of additional topics offer mixed results of reliability.
A study conducted in 2008(?) compared Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica (print), Encyclopedia Britannica (online), and the Dictionary of American History and the American National Biography Online using nine selections in the categories of biographies, events, places, and movements/phenomena. This study confirmed the fact that Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than traditionally accepted sources (Rector, 2008). “Nevertheless, even on such nonscientific topics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be comparable to that of Britannica” (Fallis, 2008, p. 1666).
In another comparison of biographies, when compared to the online resources of American National Biography Online and Encarta results show that Wikipedia ranks in the middle, providing fewer results than American National Biography, but more than Encarta (Rector, 2007, p. 8).
When discussing the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia, Fallis (2008) provides an interesting debate. “Rather than simply determining exactly how reliable an information source is, we should determine how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives…we should really be comparing the reliability of Wikipedia against the reliability of information sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were not available (viz., the freely available Web sites on their topic of interest returned by their favorite search engine)” (p. 1667). (Annette)
2. Choose for or against and present supporting facts and data
Choose a side (per say) and present information supporting an opinion; in favor or against the use of Wikipedia. The digital scholarship and CNET news article presents information supporting how Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. (Frank)
Define what Wikipedia is (YouTube, 2008) and what traditional sources are (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). Compare reliability and the issues/errors that are identified for both types using statistics in the resources (Giles, 2005, Rector, 2008, and Moeller, 2009). Look at who the users are and the purpose and benefits of both types of resources (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). By looking at the advantages of Wikipedia, emphasize the importance of how it supports the need for online resources to create an epistemic value to meet the needs of literacy in the 21st century (Fallis, 2008). (Barb)
3. Present information let audience decide
The articles and video listed in our resources support various opinions. The other option would be to present the information as is, and let the audience decide based upon our information. (Frank)
Define the values, principles, mission, scope, process, and purpose of traditional and online sources (Rector, 2008). Use the YouTube to show how Wikipedia works (YouTube, 2008). Identify the similarities and differences (Berinstein, 2006 and Rector, 2008). This shows that each has their own strength and weakness and can be used within their parameters (Rector, 2008 and Black, 2008). This can be supported with stats of errors, issues, and criticisms (Giles, 2005, Terdiman, 2005, and Digitalscholar). Finish with recommendations on how to improve Wikipedia to make it more reliable and the importance of educating students on how to evaluate sources for accurate information (Rector, 2008, Black, 2008, and Badke, 2009). (Barb) As we have all commented on there are pro/con arguments for the use of Wikipedia in an academic setting from our research sources. There does seem to be another common theme running through several of our sources regarding encyclopedias whether printed or online, traditional or collaborative—that encyclopedias should be a starting point for research, not the end (Berinstein, 2006; Fallis, 2008, p. 1667; Head, 2010; and Spiro, 2008).(Annette)
Theresa:
I believe the organizational strategy for our project is category / concept. we are looking at a conceptual comparative question that has 3 conceptual questions to answer.
The purpose and goal of the paper is to evaluate Wikipedia on its validity as a scholarly source, as compared to other accepted schollarly sources and to provide our determination on if it should be used (or not used), or perhaps if it is our opinion that it can be used, but only in a limited scope or capacity. Looking at Frank's ideas on the topic (below) and my research, I am leaning towards recommending against Wikipedia as a scholarly source for 2 main reasons. 1 empirically and statistically proven to be less accurate than accepted scholarly resources and 2 even man who designed Wikipedia is not very convincing in his efforts to strive for optimal accuracy, Fairly accurate seems to be good enough for him. I do not believe that to be the case with most scholars,.
(Still working on my synthesis suggestions as I continue to evaluate)
It is less reliable than other refrences sources - 80 % vs 95-96 %(Rector, 2007) and 162 vs 163 errors Wikipedia vs Britannica (Giles, 2005)
It has a higher prevalance of uncited / unverified facts and statements which is not scholarly and which alludes to a higher percentage of palagarism which is unaccptable in scholarly work. Authority often cannot be established which is one component of evaluation, and makes information on Wikipedia much harder to evaluate accurately. (Rector, 2007) / (Berinstein, 2006)
Frank
I believe our topic will be controversial amongst ourselves, as well as our audience. The articles and video listed in our resources support various opinions. The YouTube video presents information supporting the use of Wikipedia in the research process. The digital scholarship and CNET news article presents information supporting how Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. Our resources are great! We either choose a side (per say) and present information supporting an opinion; in favor or against the use of Wikipedia. The other option would be to present the information as is, and let the audience decide based upon our information.
Annette In determining an organization strategy, according to Taylor (2007), “the student will have to provide background information on the issue, compare various positions on the topic, state his or her position with supporting reasoning and explanation, and draw a conclusion” (p. 144). From this, in order to effectively answer our main research question we will need to follow an organization by concept strategy where separate ideas are combined to produce a concept and the synthesis leads to a logical conclusion. (Taylor, 2007, p. 149).
Synthesis regarding statistics of Wikipedia reliability. Reliability comparison results prove to be greater or lesser based on the subject matter. Although few scientific studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wikipedia compared to alternatives the debate over the reliability of Wikipedia continues. When a comparison on the subject of science was conducted, both Britannica and Wikipedia had four “serious” errors, but comparing factual errors, omissions, or misleading statements indicated greater discrepancies. Wikipedia had 162 errors and Britannica had 123 (Giles, 2005), making Wikipedia “only slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica” (as cited by Fallis, 2008, p. 1666; Badke, 2009, p. 54). Further comparisons of additional topics offer mixed results of reliability.
A study conducted in 2008(?) compared Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica (print), Encyclopedia Britannica (online), and the Dictionary of American History and the American National Biography Online using nine selections in the categories of biographies, events, places, and movements/phenomena. This study confirmed the fact that Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than traditionally accepted sources (Rector, 2008). “Nevertheless, even on such nonscientific topics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be comparable to that of Britannica” (Fallis, 2008, p. 1666).
In another comparison of biographies, when compared to the online resources of American National Biography Online and Encarta results show that Wikipedia ranks in the middle, providing fewer results than American National Biography, but more than Encarta (Rector, 2007, p. 8).
When discussing the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia, Fallis (2008) provides an interesting debate. “Rather than simply determining exactly how reliable an information source is, we should determine how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives…we should really be comparing the reliability of Wikipedia against the reliability of information sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were not available (viz., the freely available Web sites on their topic of interest returned by their favorite search engine)” (p. 1667).
2. As we have all commented on there are pro/con arguments for the use of Wikipedia in an academic setting from our research sources. There does seem to be another common theme running through several of our sources regarding encyclopedias whether printed or online, traditional or collaborative—that encyclopedias should be a starting point for research, not the end (Berinstein, 2006; Fallis, 2008, p. 1667; Head, 2010; and Spiro, 2008).
Barb, great job on putting the synthesis together in categories! It seems from the sources that although the debate will continue, there is recognition among those who currently accept using Wikipedia as an acceptable source and those who don't, that the open source model is the way--there just needs to be certainty in content reliability.
Barbara
Concept/category organizational strategy would work best because it is possible to discuss individual themes related to reliability for online and traditional research sources, compare Wikipedia to traditional scholastic sources, identify characteristics of acceptable scholastic research, and support statements with reliable data.
Purpose and goal of paper: To identify what is considered reliable for online and traditional research sources, characteristics of acceptable sources, and look at how Wikipedia manages the content.
Define the values, principles, mission, scope, process, and purpose of traditional and online sources (Rector, 2008). Use the YouTube to show how Wikipedia works (YouTube, 2008). Identify the similarities and differences (Berinstein, 2006 and Rector, 2008). This shows that each has their own strength and weakness and can be used within their parameters (Rector, 2008 and Black, 2008). This can be supported with stats of errors, issues, and criticisms (Giles, 2005, Terdiman, 2005, and Digitalscholar). Finish with recommendations on how to improve Wikipedia to make it more reliable and the importance of educating students on how to evaluate sources for accurate information (Rector, 2008, Black, 2008, and Badke, 2009).
Define what Wikipedia is (YouTube, 2008) and what traditional sources are (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). Compare reliability and the issues/errors that are identified for both types using statistics in the resources (Giles, 2005, Rector, 2008, and Moeller, 2009). Look at who the users are and the purpose and benefits of both types of resources (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). By looking at the advantages of Wikipedia, emphasize the importance of how it supports the need for online resources to create an epistemic value to meet the needs of literacy in the 21st century (Fallis, 2008).
Purpose and goal of paper:
After reviewing each resource, what relationships do you detect between them? Do certain resources agree with or complement one another? Do others boldly contradict one another? Perhaps one extends an idea that is proposed in another, or introduces a new spin on a previously discussed concept.
Each person is to post 1–2 specific synthesis suggestions for the presentation to the Synthesis page of the group wiki
NOTE:Reference list in ADP format has been uploaded as an attached file. References are listed below but ADP format didn't paste with the text.
Strategy
The organizational strategy for our project is category / concept. We are looking at a conceptual comparative question that has 3 conceptual questions to answer. In order to effectively answer our main research question we will need to follow an organization by concept strategy where separate ideas are combined to produce a concept and the synthesis leads to a logical conclusion. (Taylor, 2007, p. 149). As an example, it is possible to discuss individual themes related to reliability for online and traditional research sources, compare Wikipedia to traditional scholastic sources, identify characteristics of acceptable scholastic research, and support statements with reliable data (Taylor, 2007). According to Taylor, “the student will have to provide background information on the issue, compare various positions on the topic, state his or her position with supporting reasoning and explanation, and draw a conclusion” (Taylor, 2007).
Purpose and goal
Evaluate Wikipedia on its validity as a scholarly source, as compared to other accepted scholarly sources and to provide our determination that it should not be used as a cited source but is used only in a limited scope or capacity. To identify what is considered reliable for online and traditional research sources, characteristics of acceptable sources, and look at how Wikipedia manages the content. Present a position, include supporting facts and reasoning, and draw a conclusion.
5-8 Synthesis relationships
1. Wikipedia is not a reliable scholarly source.
Wikipedia is not a scholarly source for 2 main reasons. 1 empirically and statistically proven to be less accurate than accepted scholarly resources and 2 even man who designed Wikipedia is not very convincing in his efforts to strive for optimal accuracy. Fairly accurate seems to be good enough for him. I do not believe that to be the case with most scholars. It is less reliable than other references sources - 80 % vs. 95-96 % (Rector, 2007) and 162 vs. 163 errors Wikipedia vs. Britannica (Giles, 2005) (Theresa)
It has a higher prevalence of uncited / unverified facts and statements which is not scholarly and which alludes to a higher percentage of plagiarism which is unacceptable in scholarly work. Authority often cannot be established which is one component of evaluation, and makes information on Wikipedia much harder to evaluate accurately. (Rector, 2007) / (Berinstein, 2006) (Theresa)
Reliability comparison results prove to be greater or lesser based on the subject matter. Although few scientific studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wikipedia compared to alternatives the debate over the reliability of Wikipedia continues. When a comparison on the subject of science was conducted, both Britannica and Wikipedia had four “serious” errors, but comparing factual errors, omissions, or misleading statements indicated greater discrepancies. Wikipedia had 162 errors and Britannica had 123 (Giles, 2005), making Wikipedia “only slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica” (as cited by Fallis, 2008, p. 1666; Badke, 200x, p. 54). Further comparisons of additional topics offer mixed results of reliability.
A study conducted in 2008(?) compared Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica (print), Encyclopedia Britannica (online), and the Dictionary of American History and the American National Biography Online using nine selections in the categories of biographies, events, places, and movements/phenomena. This study confirmed the fact that Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than traditionally accepted sources (Rector, 2008). “Nevertheless, even on such nonscientific topics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be comparable to that of Britannica” (Fallis, 2008, p. 1666).
In another comparison of biographies, when compared to the online resources of American National Biography Online and Encarta results show that Wikipedia ranks in the middle, providing fewer results than American National Biography, but more than Encarta (Rector, 2007, p. 8).
When discussing the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia, Fallis (2008) provides an interesting debate. “Rather than simply determining exactly how reliable an information source is, we should determine how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives…we should really be comparing the reliability of Wikipedia against the reliability of information sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were not available (viz., the freely available Web sites on their topic of interest returned by their favorite search engine)” (p. 1667). (Annette)
2. Choose for or against and present supporting facts and data
Choose a side (per say) and present information supporting an opinion; in favor or against the use of Wikipedia. The digital scholarship and CNET news article presents information supporting how Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. (Frank)
Define what Wikipedia is (YouTube, 2008) and what traditional sources are (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). Compare reliability and the issues/errors that are identified for both types using statistics in the resources (Giles, 2005, Rector, 2008, and Moeller, 2009). Look at who the users are and the purpose and benefits of both types of resources (Rector, 2008 and Berinstein, 2006). By looking at the advantages of Wikipedia, emphasize the importance of how it supports the need for online resources to create an epistemic value to meet the needs of literacy in the 21st century (Fallis, 2008). (Barb)
3. Present information let audience decide
The articles and video listed in our resources support various opinions. The other option would be to present the information as is, and let the audience decide based upon our information. (Frank)
Define the values, principles, mission, scope, process, and purpose of traditional and online sources (Rector, 2008). Use the YouTube to show how Wikipedia works (YouTube, 2008). Identify the similarities and differences (Berinstein, 2006 and Rector, 2008). This shows that each has their own strength and weakness and can be used within their parameters (Rector, 2008 and Black, 2008). This can be supported with stats of errors, issues, and criticisms (Giles, 2005, Terdiman, 2005, and Digitalscholar). Finish with recommendations on how to improve Wikipedia to make it more reliable and the importance of educating students on how to evaluate sources for accurate information (Rector, 2008, Black, 2008, and Badke, 2009). (Barb)
As we have all commented on there are pro/con arguments for the use of Wikipedia in an academic setting from our research sources. There does seem to be another common theme running through several of our sources regarding encyclopedias whether printed or online, traditional or collaborative—that encyclopedias should be a starting point for research, not the end (Berinstein, 2006; Fallis, 2008, p. 1667; Head, 2010; and Spiro, 2008).(Annette)
References:
Badke, William, 2009. Educational Leadership, Mar2009, Stepping Beyond Wikipedia, Vol. 66 Issue 6, p54-58, 5p; (AN 36666626) Retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://cv8yh9th3f.search.serialssolutions.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/?SS_Source=3&genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Stepping%20Beyond%20WIKIPEDIA&title=Educational%20Leadership&issn=00131784&date=03%2F01%2F2009&volume=66&issue=6&spage=54&SS_docid=000001663589531&author=William%20Badke
Bcveen, (2008, July) Using Wikipedia for Academic Research [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved June 24, 1010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbKDcu_wfg
Berinstein, P. (2006, March). Wikipedia and Britannica: The kid's all right (and so's the old man). Searcher, 14(3), 16-26. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1002215161).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=1002215161&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277354447&clientId=70192
Black, E.W. (2008). Wikipedia and academic peer review :Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?. Online Information Review, 32(1), 73-88. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1440900561). Retrieved .. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-23-2015&FMT=7&DID=1440900561&RQT=309&cfc=1.
Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved from Business Source Corporate database.
Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-1. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 962266351).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=0&did=962266351&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277353348
Is Wikipedia Becoming a Respectable Academic Source? retrieved June 22, 2010 from http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source
Moeller, E. (2009). Wikipedia Scholarly Survey Results. Wikimedia.org, Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/17/Scholarly_Survey_Results.pdf.
Rector, L.H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1440841811).
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=6&sid=9&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=70192&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1440841811&scaling=FULL&ts=1277345416&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1277345444&clientId=70192
Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved 6/23/10 from http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Theresa:
I believe the organizational strategy for our project is category / concept. we are looking at a conceptual comparative question that has 3 conceptual questions to answer.
The purpose and goal of the paper is to evaluate Wikipedia on its validity as a scholarly source, as compared to other accepted schollarly sources and to provide our determination on if it should be used (or not used), or perhaps if it is our opinion that it can be used, but only in a limited scope or capacity. Looking at Frank's ideas on the topic (below) and my research, I am leaning towards recommending against Wikipedia as a scholarly source for 2 main reasons. 1 empirically and statistically proven to be less accurate than accepted scholarly resources and 2 even man who designed Wikipedia is not very convincing in his efforts to strive for optimal accuracy, Fairly accurate seems to be good enough for him. I do not believe that to be the case with most scholars,.
(Still working on my synthesis suggestions as I continue to evaluate)
Frank
Annette
In determining an organization strategy, according to Taylor (2007), “the student will have to provide background information on the issue, compare various positions on the topic, state his or her position with supporting reasoning and explanation, and draw a conclusion” (p. 144). From this, in order to effectively answer our main research question we will need to follow an organization by concept strategy where separate ideas are combined to produce a concept and the synthesis leads to a logical conclusion. (Taylor, 2007, p. 149).
Synthesis regarding statistics of Wikipedia reliability.
Reliability comparison results prove to be greater or lesser based on the subject matter. Although few scientific studies have been conducted on the reliability of Wikipedia compared to alternatives the debate over the reliability of Wikipedia continues. When a comparison on the subject of science was conducted, both Britannica and Wikipedia had four “serious” errors, but comparing factual errors, omissions, or misleading statements indicated greater discrepancies. Wikipedia had 162 errors and Britannica had 123 (Giles, 2005), making Wikipedia “only slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica” (as cited by Fallis, 2008, p. 1666; Badke, 2009, p. 54). Further comparisons of additional topics offer mixed results of reliability.
A study conducted in 2008(?) compared Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica (print), Encyclopedia Britannica (online), and the Dictionary of American History and the American National Biography Online using nine selections in the categories of biographies, events, places, and movements/phenomena. This study confirmed the fact that Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than traditionally accepted sources (Rector, 2008). “Nevertheless, even on such nonscientific topics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be comparable to that of Britannica” (Fallis, 2008, p. 1666).
In another comparison of biographies, when compared to the online resources of American National Biography Online and Encarta results show that Wikipedia ranks in the middle, providing fewer results than American National Biography, but more than Encarta (Rector, 2007, p. 8).
When discussing the topic of the reliability of Wikipedia, Fallis (2008) provides an interesting debate. “Rather than simply determining exactly how reliable an information source is, we should determine how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives…we should really be comparing the reliability of Wikipedia against the reliability of information sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were not available (viz., the freely available Web sites on their topic of interest returned by their favorite search engine)” (p. 1667).
2.
As we have all commented on there are pro/con arguments for the use of Wikipedia in an academic setting from our research sources. There does seem to be another common theme running through several of our sources regarding encyclopedias whether printed or online, traditional or collaborative—that encyclopedias should be a starting point for research, not the end (Berinstein, 2006; Fallis, 2008, p. 1667; Head, 2010; and Spiro, 2008).
Barb, great job on putting the synthesis together in categories! It seems from the sources that although the debate will continue, there is recognition among those who currently accept using Wikipedia as an acceptable source and those who don't, that the open source model is the way--there just needs to be certainty in content reliability.
Barbara
Concept/category organizational strategy would work best because it is possible to discuss individual themes related to reliability for online and traditional research sources, compare Wikipedia to traditional scholastic sources, identify characteristics of acceptable scholastic research, and support statements with reliable data.
Purpose and goal of paper: To identify what is considered reliable for online and traditional research sources, characteristics of acceptable sources, and look at how Wikipedia manages the content.