Let’s just take a moment to break down this word “credible”.
Well according to Wikipedia:
“Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.
Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is a based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality). Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.”
So in terms of Wikipedia as an academic source, is it trustworthy? As an example of a snap shot of public opinion I believe it is. It does have components of an objective and subjective nature. Yes Wikipedia is ultimately subjective, however as a definition, does that not mean that it is more trustworthy? And in summation of this comparison to a Wikipedia definition – I find wikipedia incredibly attractive, not only within the context of aesthetics, but also as a source. I am attracted to a Wikipedia definition because I know that definitions will be given in accessible language and will be easy to understand. I also know that at the bottom of the page I can find useful links to other sources.
So what does a dictionary say about “credibility”?
Well Oxford’s online dictionary state that to be credible is to:
“(adjective) able to be believed; convincing”
So isn’t the concept of being convincing in fact subjective?
Why is it that in Creative Industry subjects at QUT you are able to make an academic reference to Wikipedia information but in business subjects you are not?
I will continue to use Wikipedia as a starting point for most of my research, academic and non academic. I see the value in a collective intelligence of such but at the same time can see why others may believe it inappropriate. It really does conjure notions of academic elitism, why should general information be less worthy than official academic sources. Why is one persons opinion more or less credible than another’s?
I will finish this post with Wikipedia’s own definition of itself:
“Wikipedia is a free, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning ‘quick’) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s 12 million articles (2.8 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the Wikipedia website. Launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[7] it is currently the most popular general reference work on the Internet.
Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies, and target its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy are also an issue. Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information, though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.
Jonathan Dee, of The New York Times, and Andrew Lih, in the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism, have cited the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently-updated news resource.
When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of three examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube and MySpace.”
All whole foods for thought!
