Synthesis Group Work Activity
Synthesis Group Work Activity
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor’s Name
Date
Synthesis Group Work Activity
Hello, my name is Damir Collins and it is a pleasure to meet all of you finally. Together as a group, we will discuss whether or not educational institutions such as universities should be permitted to utilize Wikipedia as a research tool. Then we will try to conclude it as a whole. The speaker for our group will be XXX, and it will be his role to moderate our discussions. The scribe for our group will be XXX, and it will be his responsibility to make a record of all of the group’s decisions, activities, and concerns raised during discussions and also to make a record of any critical conversation that will take place during the talks so that recurring subjects may be avoided.
Even though Wikipedia is a resource that may be quite useful to students to learn new things and do research, learning institutions such as universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. This is because, despite its entire reference works, Wikipedia is not considered a credible source of information since not everything found in Wikipedia is comprehensive, accurate, or unbiased. In addition, Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a research tool in universities since Wikipedia is not a reputable source when it comes to citations and should not be relied upon. Since Wikipedia is a source that different users usually develop, anybody may modify it at any moment. Besides, t[the information it includes at any one time might be vandalism, incomplete, or just plain wrong (Mercer, 2018).
Furthermore, even though individuals in the academic world, ranging from learners to professors, are increasingly turning to Wikipedia as a readily available tertiary source for knowledge on a wide variety of topics, universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. This is because Wikipedia is a project maintained entirely by volunteers, and the site can’t verify every contribution permanently. Besides, numerous mistakes go unreported for a period ranging from a few hours to several months or even years. In addition to this, there is a possibility that not all mistakes may ever be rectified. It is also possible for a change to fix an error to be undone later. Therefore, students and professors should not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
Moreover, it is usually not a good idea to use Wikipedia as a research tool unless you are confident that it is maintained by a reputable organization such as a government science department or university or unless you have independently validated the material included on the website using other reliable sources. Wikipedia, like all other websites information, may become outdated with time. Lastly, universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool because the vast majority of the information on Wikipedia has not been validated by specialists, which means that it cannot be regarded as genuine or dependable.
Major Themes and Patterns in the Excerpts
After going through the four extracts, it is evident that they all support the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. Both extracts indirectly support the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, and they do not show the disadvantages of using Wikipedia and why it should be discouraged.
How Excerpts Differ in Opinion
Even though the four extracts support the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, they all differ in opinion. For example, the first extract endorses the use of Wikipedia by stating that more efforts should be directed toward motivating learners to become proficient and critical users of Wikipedia as part of their sense-making practices and information gathering. The second extract supports the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource by stating that the widespread exposure gives the impression that Wikipedia is more controversial than it is. The extract points out that many professors make substantial, though careful, use of it themselves, and as a result, they tend to advocate for a cautious approach to its use by students. The third extract’s opinion in supporting the use of Wikipedia is that due to its egalitarian approach to the presentation of information, its user-friendly design, and the fact that it is available free of charge, Wikipedia is a popular source of knowledge among undergraduate students. Lastly, the fourth extract’s opinion supporting Wikipedia is that most faculties are frequent users of Wikipedia but prefer not to talk about it.
Reconsidering My Opinion
After reading the extracts’ opinions on supporting the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, I choose to reconsider my stand that universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. Therefore, I think students should be allowed to use Wikipedia as an academic resource cautiously.
Synthesis Paragraph
Finally, as a group, we argue for using Wikipedia as a research tool. According to the first extract, more effort should be put into helping students become critical and proficient consumers of Wikipedia as part of their sense-making practices and information gathering instead of advocating against or trying to prevent its usage. In addition, we argue for using Wikipedia as a research tool since, according to the second extract, many professors make substantial, though careful, use of it themselves and often advocate for a similarly cautious attitude to its usage among students.
References
Mercer, D. (2018). Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source. Edge. Retrieved 5 October 2022, from https://apuedge.com/why-you-cannot-use-wikipedia-as-an-academic-source/.
