Wikipedia Audit Blog Entry

I've used Wikipedia for many years, and I always find it to be a reliable source when I'm in need for quick pieces of information. Whether it be for an academic purpose or pop culture fact, Wikipedia definitely has evolved as the internet encyclopedia of our time. However, after auditing and evaluating my group's Wikipedia article on Decriminalization of Cannabis in the United States, I realized many things regarding the validity of Wikipedia. There were many cited sources that lead to dead links or third party websites, which completely discredited that section of the article. The primary and secondary sources that were cited were valid, but much of the information taken from them was taken out of context. Bias was definitely present in the article, which is expected when talking about such a highly controversial subject such as marijuana. Overall, in all honesty I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source, especially not one to be cited for academic purposes. The beneficial aspect of Wikipedia is that it allows users to research an array of topics. Its weaknesses are that many of the information presented on the site can be changed by anyone, some of it is out of context, and in some cases it is contradictory or not accurate at all. Technology has such an immense influence on American culture, which can be a good and bad thing at times. By relying on Wikipedia we are allowing ourselves to take in information that in some cases may not be accurate, or not portray the full aspect of a subject, and be misinformed. However, many people still use Wikipedia, generally because it's quick, easily accessible, and best of all free. This idea of quick and easily accessible has become very prominent in our culture, and most probably why we are so reliant on technology (even if it may harm us). In the end, I learned that Wikipedia should not be the first or only source of where I get my information. However, I will most likely succumb to the easy access of technology and use Wikipedia again, but this time being fully aware that it is most probably not a reliable source.