Can WIKIPEDIA Ever Make the Grade?

Can WIKIPEDIA Ever Make the Grade?

The Wikipedia debate in this article intensifies as the creditability of the online encyclopedia is questioned. The grading aspect of Wikipedia is judged based on scholarly perception, as this new age of encyclopedia is met with mixed reviews. Professors are looking to test the actually accuracy of Wikipedia by placing false information within the site to judge the merit of it’s editing process. Simultaneously, while this is going on wikipedians are trying to increase professor involvement in the information and editing process. This article comes to a double edge sword for me because while professor involvement is encouraged, this involvement is met with stern, harsh criticism. It seems to be a losing battle for professors who see a problem but are in a position where they cannot really fix it completely. Wikipedia tries to exercise its objective outlook on content and editing, but that outlook has a very short lived future when you have scholars having their mastery of material being chopped and screwed by self made wikipedians. The sites bias positions on science gives it merit, but what it lacks in other subject areas is what raises eyebrows in the world of academia.
If Wikipedia wants to attain the level of respects it seeks, it should give more respect to the scholars it’s trying to reach out to. No professional would welcome anyone telling them they are doing their job incorrectly, and what they are offering is equivalent to an amateur’s work. My solution to this problem would be to separate Wikipedia and have some type of wiki scholar portion, provided solely for scholar’s to provide their input, without mixing it in with the openness of the rest of the site. Validity of facts may become easier to check if you can compare and contrast the two.