When it comes to the topic of whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, most of us will readily agree that it’s looked at as a source of information we can quickly refer to, but should never be the only source of information used to form the basis of an opinion. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the reader’s perceived importance of citations and researchable data to prove that the information so readily absorbed is true. Whereas some are convinced that this site should be avoided, others maintain the mindset that Wikipedia should be looked at as a site you can learn from, not shy away from.
When it comes to taking one side, or the other, I tend to believe that Wikipedia isn’t a bountiful…show more content… When Mr. Seigenthaler read his own story as described and cited by others on Wikipedia, he was shocked by what he discovered. It was written and claimed that he had been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby as its written in Katharine Q. Seelye’s article, “Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar.” Personally, I would be infuriated to find completely fictitious and damning information about my life biographed in such a vastly pursued, publicly accessible forum and equally helpless to even try and imagine how much this unconfirmed data may have already affected my personal and professional life. I understand that individuals can write anything they want on Wikipedia, but at least find out the real facts and get them right if you decide to write about someone else’s life because it’s their life and having untrue things spread about that individual could affect how that individual lives for the rest of their life. Whether that individual would be scorned by his peers in public or private, or unjustly seen as an enemy in a stranger’s eyes could have a dramatic effect on his or hers current and former relationships and without doubt, their quality of
