Reading this article I got a sense of an overvaluation of Wikipedia’s affect on society. I don’t believe Wikipedia is credible because of the way users update the data. There is a lot of room for error in their process and no guarantee the data is accurate or true. This isn’t really talked about in the article and that left a bad taste in my mouth.

The writer mainly focused on the glits and glam. Talking about celebrity appeal, its rapid growth as a business and of course mass popularity. Wikipedia is mainstream and deserves its spot on the top, but it is reliable and is it credible?

Reading the article the somewhat bias writer said themselves in not so many words that, Wikipedia fails to paint a full picture. Using the creator’s unique appearance and personality as an example, Wikipedia wasn’t capable of describing it’s subject well enough to give the reader the sense of  an authentic experience. In this ever changing and technologically based society, it is becoming more and more important to have authentic experiences as opposed to looking at numbers and vague descriptions. Appreciating authentic experiences is important for people. Understanding that info, data and stats don’t paint the full picture is an important thing to learn. I agree with the teachers for censoring this from their students!

222 words