In Defense of Wikipedia

The persuasive essay on Wikipedia found in Fresh Ink is meant address the debate that has been raging over whether or not Wikipedia is a credible source due to its open edit nature. The author starts by introducing the topic and then diving into the main criticism. While many people believe that since Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, the author argues that the arguement is not as strong as most teachers and professors would have us believe. The author refers to the reason that wikipedia is an open edit encyclopedia and then addresses the main complaints against it. He highlights a severe instance of fictional information on Wikipedia in one paragraph in order to illustrate the arguement of one side, but then switches and presents the counter arguement by the end of the paragraph.

This essay had me from the word go. Wikipedia is a site I go on once a day, if not more. Whenever I have to do preliminary research for a paper, that is where I go first. However, I could not clearly determine the side the author favored. While he focused on the flaws of the website, he also gave evidence throughout the essay which undermined the flaws. By the end of the essay it became clear that the student was pro-wikipedia, but that initial confusion lingered throughout much of the essay. It could have benefited from a stronger introductory paragraph and changing of sentence structure in several parts. However, the jumbling all came together at the conclusion which satisfied me as the reader and was very clear cut.