Group good's arguement

Argument 1:
easy to use and learn

Wikis are instantaneous so there is no need to wait for a publisher to create a new edition or update information

people located in different parts of the world can work on the same document

the wiki software keeps track of every edit made and it's a simple process to revert back to a previous version of an article

widens access to the power of web publishing to non-technical users

the wiki has no predetermined structure - consequently it is a flexible tool which can be used for a wide range of applications

there are a wide range of open source software wiki's to choose from so licensing costs shouldn't be a barrier to installing an institutional wiki.

Criticize: The information may not accurate

Support:  Just recently the National Institute of Health launched a new initiative to encourage their scientists to edit or start new Wikipedia entries on their area of expertise to ensure that the correct information on health issues is cited. “Wikipedia articles (there are more than 2.9 million of them in English) can be initiated and edited by anyone who can access the website. Quality is informally monitored by fellow users, who can make corrections and change the text freely. All information that is posted is supposed to include citations so a reader can check the primary sources of the data,”  Washington Post article stated.

suggestion: check the primary sources which Wikipedia provided.

Support 2:

“ We have traditionally protected articles to deal with temporary attacks of vandalism. In such a state, no one could edit those articles. We did not like this, so we moved to a system of semi-protection, and the quality improvements were impressive.

We will now be experimenting, first in the German Wikipedia, with a model of flagging versions as being "nonvandalized," while still allowing editing. Each of these steps is designed to be more open, and each is also designed to help achieve higher quality.

Britannica doesn't display its rough drafts, or the articles before being checked by a copy editor; Wikipedia does. We think this sort of open transparency is healthy and results in greater quality than doing everything behind closed doors.”

Suggestion: If you feel that a certain article on Wikipedia is bias or inaccurate change it yourself OR e-mail an editor.

Read them though and upload your comments:

is the argument logical?

is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?

is the argument convincing/persuasive?

how could it be improved?