Auditing a Wikipedia Article: Midterm Follow-up

       Whether is it for academic reasons or to gain a brief understanding of a topic, Wikipedia is a primary source for many people. While Wikipedia is very useful in finding out the basic idea of a subject, it should not be used as a scholarly source. Anyone can publish information, which can serve as a good and a bad thing. Since people are able to post whatever they want, there is the potential that people may post opinions which can create biases on the website. Also, unless someone is updating the information constantly, information may be false or outdated. On the other hand, the website gives many aspects of one subject. For the most part, it is easy to gain an understanding of a topic with just a quick glance. Users may also gain other references and sources from the website. It also shows us that people are interested in helping others. These articles are edited by choice.
       Wikipedia is an example of how things are becoming increasingly easier. The website is so commonly used. The tool is readily available which may cause people to not search further. Also it is important to consider that many of the sources are other people’s opinions and it is important that we form out own.
       While false information may not always have a great impact on individuals’ lives, in this case, the misinformation is very important to consider. Our Wikipedia article (Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States), in particular, can have a serious impact on our culture. The topic is about a controversial issue involving law. We determined that this article takes a pro-marijuana stance. When readers are given more benefits and consequences, it is more likely for us to form a supporting argument. These misguided opinions may lead to ignorant decisions, such as using cannabis in general or without proper knowledge.
       Another thing I noticed was this article is missing a lot of information about the health effects of the drug. The article simply states that cannabis can have a “pernicious effect” on health, but claims that many of the effects are uncertain. It also says states that long-term use of cannabis can be compared to long-term use of alcohol or tobacco, but these effects are not listed. Readers would also not be able to gain a complete understanding of the law from this article. This could potentially cause readers to take more risks as they do not know if possession is considered a felony or a misdemeanor. It is easy to forget that regardless of the possible positive outcomes listed in the article, cannabis is still illegal.
      I found that I am much more skeptical when searching for information on the internet.  Since the emergence of Web 2.0, internet users are able not only able to read information, but write it as well.  Now that the internet is created by almost anyone, it is important to consider where this information is coming from.  In the future, I will not be so reliant on Wikipedia.