Is Using Wikipedia In Fact Blasphemy or Is It Simply Misunderstood

For my edit, the article I decided to use was Mark Moran's The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia. While reading the article, I got the sense that Moran was personally victimized by the website, and decided to take out his frustrations by informing the public to not use Wikipedia for scholarly sources. By using Rebecca Jones' essay Finding The Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic, I found a way to make is article an argument for both sides of the problem, rather than a simple bashing of the website.

I crossed out words or phrases I thought were maybe too harsh, and added text with red to state a second side of the argument or to add my thoughts on what he was saying. He may have very well wanted to state his argument by simply using all of the fault of Wikipedia; but I think to write a successful essay for people to be able to make an informed decision must be un-biased. His own personal experiences are welcome to state the negative side of the argument, but staying unbiased as you inform readers of something gives them confidence in your agenda. Rather than trying to persuade his readers to side with him, let them use the essay to make an informed decision for themselves. After all, the article states that if one doesn't double check facts, it could have dangerous implications; the same applies to the article at hand.

"News reporters and the purveyors of mass media have an ostensible commitment to a realist, even a positivist, epistemology. They are supposedly devoted to the fact. In principle, their brand of objectivity resembles that of applied science, a hardheaded insistence on maintaining their own perspective against the pressures and intrusions of the governmental and corporate powers" (Ecospeak, M. Jimmie Killingsworth; Jacqueline Palmer.)

I think Moran is an exact example is this quote from Killingsworth and Palmers article Ecospeak. He doesn't have an unbiased approach of informing the public of the trouble with using Wikipedia. Instead he is using, what seems like, his own personal issue with the website. I did my best to edit his article in order to reflect an unbiased stance on the issue. No, Wikipedia is not the best website to use  for scholarly citing, but if use properly and having sources checked against similar articles, it can be a useful tool in narrowing down information to better synthesize.

-D