Wikipedian Declaration

In case you have just joined this blogging adventure, below is my declaration of what I am doing.

Scoffed at by scholars and discredited by academics, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, has been dismissed as an unreliable source; but does this statement still hold true today in an ever-increasing postmodern society? The infamous Wikipedia.org is in fact more authoritative than what some uppity researchers have made it out to be—which is what I have set out to prove.

Wikipedia is in fact a well-researched website, and the research invested into this encyclopedia never stops—articles and article stubs are constantly being checked by Wikipedia editors daily. Anyone can be an editor, and anyone can contribute; but not everything will be published and presented to the public’s eye (details of which will be discussed in depth later).

(In fact, if you follow the link to "postmodern society," you will discover that a Wikipedia article by that title does not exist yet. This is free reign for someone to hone their intellect and make a knowledgeable contribution.)

Wikipedia’s “public” includes speakers of French, German, Italian, and more! It is a world-wide source, constantly checked and edited by scholars world-wide. It is a product of Web 2.0 as well as today’s ever-increasing postmodern society. A source that is accessible for anyone who is anybody to contribute relevant information about today’s world? That sounds postmodern.

Just like anything good in this world, it has a history, and even Wikipedia’s history gives it credibility. I’m going to prove and demonstrate that Wikipedia is a reliable source, and a Wikipedia article cited in a bibliography is not a bad thing. I myself became a Wikipedia editor and, through my personal and intellectual experience, I will bring honor to Wikipedia’s name.