Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary - Better opinion

Davidson, theThe reliability of Wikipedia predominantly of the English-language edition has been frequently questioned and here assessed.

The reliability has been tested statisticallythrough comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology [13] and a study published in Psychological Medicine[12] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.

Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editingassessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed.

We provide excellent essay writing service 24/7. Enjoy proficient essay writing and custom writing services provided by professional academic writers. word essay writing is one of the tasks that many students face. Learn here how long is a word essay and how to write it quickly and efficiently. Oakland Schools Office and Conference Center. October 15, am. The staff of Oakland Schools administration department was in need of additional. Automatically formats, alphabetize, and prints bibliographies for free. The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability has been tested.

A study conducted by IBM researchers in —two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" [17] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".

False information has sometimes lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In Mayan editor sparked controversy by creating an article about John Seigenthaler that included false and defamatory statements. A student investigation determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing; contributors are not required to provide any Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary, or even an email address.

A study at Dartmouth College of the English Wikipedia noted that, contrary to usual social expectations, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive contributors of valid content.

Wikipedia trusts the same community to self-regulate and become more proficient at quality control. Wikipedia has harnessed the work of millions of people to produce the world's largest knowledge-based site along with software to support it, resulting in more than nineteen million articles written, across more than different language versions, in fewer than twelve years. The first four of these have been the subjects of various studies of the project, while the presence of bias is strongly disputed, and the prevalence and quality of citations can be tested within Wikipedia.

In contrast with all the previous intrinsic metrics, several "market-oriented" extrinsic measures demonstrate that large audiences trust Wikipedia in one way or another. For instance, "50 percent of [US] physicians report that they've consulted The most common criticisms were:. The non-peer-reviewed study was based on Nature ' s selection of 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists.

The articles were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers, a customary practice for journal article reviews. Based on their reviews, on average the Wikipedia articles were described as containing 4 errors or omissions, while the Britannica articles contained 3.

Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica. The study concluded that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries", [4] although Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured". Among Britannica ' s criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary their articles were used, that some of the extracts were compilations that included articles written for the youth version, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary reviewers, and that many points the click here labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion.

Britannica further stated that "While the heading proclaimed that 'Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,' the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.

As we Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary below, Nature 's research grossly exaggerated Britannica 's inaccuracies, so we cite this figure only to point out the slanted way in which the numbers were presented. In JuneRoy Rosenzweiga professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of the Wikipedia biographies of 25 Americans to the corresponding biographies found on Encarta and American National Biography Online.

He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U. However, he stated that Wikipedia often fails to distinguish important from trivial details, and does not provide the best references.

He also complained about Wikipedia's lack of "persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose".

A web-based survey conducted from December to May by Larry Press, a professor of Information Systems at California State University at Dominguez Hillsassessed the "accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles".

The survey did not attempt random selection of the participants, and it is not clear how the participants were invited.

Experts evaluated 66 articles in various fields. In overall score, Wikipedia was rated 3. Viewing Wikipedia as fitting the economists' definition of a perfectly competitive marketplace of ideas, George Bragues University of Guelph-Humberexamined Wikipedia's articles on seven top Western philosophers: Wikipedia's articles were compared to a consensus list of themes culled from four reference works in philosophy.

No errors were found, though there were significant omissions. PC Pro magazine August asked experts to compare four articles a small sample in their scientific see more between Wikipedia, Britannica and Encarta. In each case Wikipedia was described as "largely sound", "well handled", "performs well", "good for the bare facts" and "broadly accurate". One article had http://cocktail24.info/blog/andrew-j-stone-resume.php marked deterioration towards the end" while another had "clearer and more elegant" writing, a third was assessed as less well written but better detailed than its competitors, and a fourth was "of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta or Britannica equivalents".

No serious errors were noted in Wikipedia articles, whereas serious errors were noted in one Encarta and one Britannica article. The article compared Wikipedia's content to other popular online encyclopedias, namely Britannica and Encarta. The magazine asked experts to evaluate articles pertaining to their field.

A total of four articles were reviewed by three experts. Wikipedia was comparable to the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category. The test was commissioned to a research institute Cologne-based WIND GmbHwhose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion on four criteria accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarityand judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average 1.

Wikipedia's coverage was also found to be more complete and up to date; however, Brockhaus was judged to be more clearly written, while several Wikipedia articles were criticized as being too complicated for non-experts, and many as too lengthy. It concluded, "The quality of content is good in all three cases" and advised Wikipedia users "Be aware that erroneous edits do occur, and check anything that seems outlandish with a second source.

But the vast majority of Wikipedia is filled with valuable and accurate information. The paper found that Wikipedia's entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent.

A study assessed the extent to which Wikipedia pages about the history of countries conformed to the site's policy of verifiability. It found that, in contradiction of this policy, many claims in these articles were not supported by citations, and that many of those that were were sourced to popular media and government websites, rather than to academic journal articles.

The study found that while information in these articles tended to be accurate, the articles examined contained many errors of omission. A study co-authored by Shane Greenstein examined a decade of Wikipedia articles on United States politics and found that the more contributors there were to a given article, the more neutral it tended to be, in line with a narrow interpretation of Linus's Law. They asked experts to rate article content with regard to accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability.

Wikipedia scored highest on all criteria except readability, and the authors concluded that Wikipedia is as good as or better than Britannica and a standard textbook. A perspective piece in the New England Journal of Medicine examined Wikipedia pages about 22 prescription drugs to determine if they had been updated to include the most recent Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary safety warnings.

A study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association examined 19 Wikipedia articles about herbal supplementsand concluded that all of these articles contained information about their "therapeutic uses and adverse effects", but also concluded that "several lacked information on drug interactions, pregnancy, and contraindications". The study's authors therefore recommended that patients not rely solely on Wikipedia as a source for information about the herbal supplements in question.

The authors concluded that "Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education". In a interview with The Guardianself-described information specialist and Internet consultant [59] Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would". He then explained that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it.

But with something like this, all that goes out the window. A review of Wikipedia by Library Journalusing a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia popular culture, current affairs, and scienceand concluded: A reviewer who "decided to explore controversial historical click here current events, hoping to find glaring abuses" said, "I was pleased by Wikipedia's objective presentation of controversial subjects" but that "as source much information floating around Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary cyberspace, a healthy degree of skepticism and skill at winnowing fact from opinion are required".

Other reviewers noted that there is Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary variation" but "good content abounds". The library at Trent University in Ontario states of Wikipedia that many articles are "long and comprehensive", but that there is "a lot of room for misinformation and bias [and] a lot of variability in both the quality and depth of articles".

It adds that Wikipedia has advantages and limitations, that it has "excellent coverage of technical topics" and articles are "often added quickly and, as a result, coverage of current events is quite good", comparing this to traditional sources which are unable to achieve this task. It concludes that, depending upon the need, one should think critically and assess the appropriateness of one's sources, "whether you are looking for fact or opinion, how in-depth you want to be as you explore a topic, the importance of reliability and accuracy, and the importance of timely or recent information", and adds that Wikipedia can be used in any event as a "starting point".

An article for the Canadian Library Association CLA [64] discusses the Wikipedia approach, process and outcome in depth, commenting for example that in controversial topics, "what is most remarkable is that the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with". The author comments that:.

In fact Wikipedia has more institutional structure than at first appears. Some experienced users are designated as administrators, with special powers of binding and loosing: They are expected to use their powers in a neutral way, forming and implementing the consensus of the community. The effect of their intervention shows in the discussion pages of most contentious articles. Wikipedia has survived this long because it is easier to reverse vandalism than it is to commit it Information Today March cites librarian Nancy O'Neill principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System as saying that "there is a good deal of skepticism about Wikipedia in the library community" but that "she also admits cheerfully that Wikipedia makes a good starting place for a search.

You get terminology, names, and a feel for the subject. PC Pro August cites the head of the European and American Collection at the British LibraryStephen Bury, as stating "Wikipedia is potentially a good thing—it provides a speedier response to new events, and to new evidence on old items".

Writing Good Paragraphs

According to Bury, the trick to using Wikipedia is to understand that "just because it's in an encyclopedia free, web or printed doesn't mean it's true. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source and because Wikipedia editors may have no expertise, competence, or credentials in the topics on which they contribute.

Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.

Researchers and academics contend that while Wikipedia may not be used as a percent accurate Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary for final papers, it is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically. What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission but rather begin to support Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.

An empirical study conducted in by a Nottingham University Business School lecturer in Information Systems, [73] the subject of a review on the technical website Ars Technica[74] involving 55 academics asked to review specific Wikipedia articles that either were in their expert field group 1 or chosen at random group 2 click at this page, concluded that: This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high.

It asserts that "Wikipedia is without question a valuable and informative resource", but that "there is an inherent lack of reliability and stability" to its articles, again drawing attention to similar advantages and limitations as other sources. As with other reviews it comments that one should assess one's sources and what is desired from them, and that "Wikipedia may be an appropriate resource for some assignments, but not for others.

Inthe Chronicle of Higher Education published an article written by Cathy DavidsonProfessor of Interdisciplinary Studies and English at Duke Universityin which she asserts that Wikipedia should be used to teach students about the concepts of reliability and credibility. His study found that Wikipedia covered the subject much more widely, more accurately and in more detail, though with some lack of balance, and that Wikipedia was the best source for the first approximation.

Geoffrey Nunbergan adjunct full professor at UC Berkeley's School of Information, has criticized Wikipedia for relying too much on citing sources even though the said sources may not be more accurate than Wikipedia itself.

popular personal essay writers for hire usa buy astronomy presentation write my religious studies thesis statement help me write professional phd essay on trump esl. s. A federal investigation concludes that Hot Springs has the largest illegal gambling operations in the United States. Clinton goes to Georgetown University. I agree with much of what you write, Professor Oliver. However, I do wish you had named names; if people are going to show contempt for free thought and attempt to. The First White President. The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but are not elevating it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science.

Write My Professional Persuasive Essay On Hillary you order, the

The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light", [81] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes—which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online—beyond the standard bibliographic references".

In his book Virtual UnrealityCharles Seifea professor of journalism at New York Universitynoted Wikipedia's susceptibility to hoaxes and misinformation, including manipulation source commercial and political organisations "masquerading as common people" making edits to Wikipedia. In conclusion, Seife presented the following advice: He can be a lot of fun—over the years he's seen a lot, and he can tell a great story.