Discussion/History and Wikipedia

Through my patient surfing of the Wikipedia Discussion tab, I have learned three things. In Wikipedia, people write in new information or ideas about the person and post it in the Discussion tab if they do not know how to post. People can request information on certain topics or they can simply fuel a controversy.

With my mind still on the 2008 campaign trail and election, I decided to research Senator Hilary Clinton. The surface of her page is smooth and clean. There is a living biography including important facts and dates. There is also information about her campaign this year. When I hit the Discussion tab, I was surprised to find many controversies in the Discussion page. According to the article, the Whitewater scandal took place while Clinton was in office. Some people were arguing that the text should better state her side of the story while others were saying there should be a piece of text saying her husband was at fault. Somebody made a comment suggesting the article was biased. The person wrote, “it seems as if Clinton could have wrote the text herself.” Also, there is a request made to add a couple sentences to her biography about a speech where she mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr.

Clinton’s Wikipedia page has come a long way. I was shocked to find a long history of edits (500 pages to be exact). Such a smooth surface…yet the history was so rocky. Her biography is the longest I have ever come across. In some way, this makes her look good because it seems as if she has done a lot in her life.

Since the article covers the latest information in her life, I’m guessing it’s up to date. I don’t know much about her history, therefore I cannot suggest any changes. There are pictures on the page and I think those should stay there. They provide visual representations of the text. Reading the discussions on the article, including other random articles I have surfed through, I feel as if my views on reliability are still the same. I don’t trust Wikipedia because it is truly an open source encyclopedia. The Clinton page is not locked due to vandalism, which means there is cooperation amongst the contributors. The content in the article seems to be appropriate but I still wouldn’t trust it for a research assignment.