Inventory System: Executive Summary Essay

AbstractThere is increase in popularity and use of the net profit for look into purposes by schools and students. Popular among the web-based information resource is the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses wiki softwargon for the design and editing of gist on its site. The use of Wikipedia for research has increased over the years. It is the worlds acclaimed sixth most visited website (Most Popular Websites on the Internet, 2012) . This status is not without its make challenges. The main atomic number 53 being that of credibility. An online encyclopedia that allows anyone to edit its entries to several(prenominal), 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 softw ar 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 reg ularly active contributors. Once connected to the web users fundament write and edit articles on the site. Wikipedia has gained much popularity particularly because of its rich information and full accessibility of data. However, owe to its capable-source management style that allows anybody to change limit, there has been a growing concern about Wikipedias credibility as a source of information for academic have.Wikipedia was free-baseed as an offshoot of Nupedia, a now-abandoned regorge to produce a free encyclopedia. Nupedia had an elaborate system of peer review and required highly suffice contributors but the writing of articles was slow. During 2000, Jimmy Wales, founder of Nupedia, and Larry Sanger whom Wales had employed to sound on the project, discussed ways of supplementing Nupedia with a much(prenominal) open, complementary project. Multiple sources suggested that a wiki might allow members of the public to contribute material, and Nupedias first wiki went onl ine on January 10, 2001.There was considerable resistance by Nupedias editors and reviewers to the idea of associating Nupedia with a website in the wiki format, so Sanger coined the stimulate Wikipedia, which is a portmanteau of wiki (a type of collaborative website, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning 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 accordance and currency. Nevertheless, at the rate contents are created and edited about three million in 2008 and this instant 21 million accuracy cannisternot match the speed Voss (2011) stated Edit history and user contributions are auxiliary clues (to the quality of the site) but very time-consuming to review (p.10). Even the founder of Wikipedia have uttered concern over the existence of such(prenominal) inconsistenc y and inaccuracy of contents. Various experts (including founder Jimmy Wales and Jonathan Zittrain, Oxford University) have show concern over possible (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 scholastic work (Smooth & Crovitz, 2011). Many others compete that the errors found on Wikipedia are not uncommon to errors found in other encyclopedias. For example, In declination 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 take statements in each references work was not so diverse Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. This was not generally accepted as the makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is completely without sexual morality (Woods & Thoeny, 2007, pp. 90-92).A major issue with Wikipedia is that of source au whereforeticity. Since flock 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), historical scholarship is also characterized by possessive individualism. Good overlord practice requires that ideas and words are attributed to specific historians. A historic work without owners and with multiple authors worry Wikipedia, is consequently almost unimaginable in our professional culture.Using Wikipedia saves time owing to its versatility and large information base, some have argued. This is because contributors are more interested in flooding the site with information than painstakingly jab deep to ensure quality of contents. Topics in Wikipedia are sometimes treated superficially with the aim of transferring a general and simple understanding 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 read between the lines on Wikipedia. field of study 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 think common people can understand (Keen, 2008).One of the five pillars, which guide Wikipedias operations is that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify or distribute. The idea of inviting readers to serve as authors or editors poses a problem. Not all users are thorough in providing accurate infor mation, and they are others who deliberately mutilate particular articles or post misleading statements. Sometimes, information is posted or edited by people who have little or lacking(predicate) 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 numerous 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 occur 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 Arbitration Committee to settle such d isputes (Woods & Thoeny, 2007).ConclusionWikipedia 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. Free and open access has outlined above, have serious consequences as it exposes texts to vandalism and inconsistency.Wikipedias contents are edited based on individuals perceived opinion or knowledge, unlike other online resources like the Oxford English Dictionary for example, which was developed by a carefully selected team of experienced professionals. By conciliatory traditional concept of authorship, Wikipedia affects associated issues of authority, 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). composing from sources (8th ed .). Bedford St. Martin Publishing.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 Cult of the Amateur How Todays Internet is Killing Our Culture. Bantam Dell Publishing GroupVoss J. (2004). Measuring Wikipediahttp/www.wikipedia.orghttp/www.mostpopularwebsites.net