For some people who are not aware of the issues surrounding the use of the Wikipedia Website, quoting from it seems to be just fine. However, the public needs to be aware that Wikipedia is actually the online encyclopedia wherein you could be an authority although you don’t even know what the hell you are talking about. It is actually a website in which pages can be edited by any visitor. The accuracy of Wikipedia has been in question for many years. In fact, the CEO of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has been receiving many complaints from students who cited the articles posted on the Website. I’m going to quote some information about the unreliability of Wikipedia that I found on my research online.
A distinguished talk show host on comedy central by the name of Stephen Colbert even made a satire regarding the issue surrounding Wikipedia.
Stephen quoted the word “Wiki lobbying” in which a company pays online writers to change the entries on the Wikipedia website in order to assimilate information in favor to them. An example given for Wiki lobbying was the news regarding Microsoft in which it paid a blogger to edit some entries.
Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit
By Brian Bergstein
“Microsoft Corp. landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site.
(MSNBC is a joint Microsoft – NBC Universal venture.)
While Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered a definite no-no.”
While a company can pay a writer to create an article that can make it appear more favorable to consumers, similarly its competitor can do the same, making it an online battle of manipulated information.
By Andrew Orlowski
“More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, Wikipedia has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.”
A recent incident compelled the founder and CEO of Wikipedia to tell students to stop quoting from Wikipedia because it could seriously damage their grades.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia, reports the US education weekly The Chronicle.
Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades.
“They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia'” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia,” the journal reports.
Now that I have laid the basis on why we say Wikipedia is an unreliable source, should a Catholic Priest like Abe Arganiosa still use it on his blog? As an educator, it is his responsibility to make sure that what he is stating on his blog is accurate in order to avoid misleading his audience. He should learn how to use reliable sources and get his facts straight. However, in reality he is fond of quoting Wikipedia for most of his articles. (Shown below is an example)
If we are going to look at the article created on the Wikipedia Website about Bro. Eli Soriano, it is quite obvious that the article was done by a bias author who doesn’t care to be neutral on issues. It is mostly a narration of criminal cases and does not reflect what the preacher really is. This is the article which Abe Arganiosa uses in order to attack the person of Bro. Eli on issues. Abe Arganiosa is an educator who doesn’t know how to use a reliable source but instead gets his information from a source which was proven to be unreliable. Wikipedia is not an authority!
In order to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is, I’ve edited some entries on the free access Encyclopedia. Here’s what you can see on Wikipedia.
According to Wikipedia, Trash-talk “has been popularized in the world of blogging to describe how a Catholic Priest, Abraham Arganiosa behaves when he writes his articles. The priest is known for hurling insulting words on the Internet in the World of Religious Apologetic.”
According to Wikipedia, the word killer “was also used by an online blog to describe a Catholic Priest’s Character, Abe Arganiosa.”
So if you don’t believe that Abe Arganiosa has popularized the used of trash talks, check out Wikipedia and you’ll see that I’m correct. If you don’t believe that Abe Arganiosa is a killer, check out Wikipedia again and it’s right there. Fortunately, editors can always correct what is written in an entry. So if you don’t like what is written on a Wikipedia article, go ahead and change it.
Filed under: abe arganiosa | Tagged: abe arganiosa, Ang Dating Daan, attack, Bro. Eli Soriano, cases, catholic, Christian, Christian Church, Christianity, church, college, complains, court, crimes, Elis Soriano, encyclopedia, evangelist, hearing, Internet, microsoft, Preacher, priest, religion, sex, sex crimes, students, unreliable, Wikipedia |