Rodh J. Lamothe
Module 6 Wikispaces assignment

I think there is somewhat reliability with Wikipedia. Though the context of a page can be edited by anyone, you still have to get all editations approved by a 'Wikipedia type board'. Wikipedia is a great source for building on ideas and getting direction to your research, but it's always good to have multiple sources. The site is consistant, providing useful information, and even references for additional sources.

Lori O'Neal
Module 6 Wikispaces assignment

I use wikipedia quite a bit, especially on my initial search for a topic. Usually, I find something written about a subject, and ideas that lead me in the direction I need to go. It is my experience that most of what I have looked up has been quite accurate, but I have run across some errors, or differences of opinions. Often, I wouldn't know if something is incorrect, and I never use wikipedia as an absolute source. I have never looked at the history page before this. Good stuff.

Susana Romo
Module 6 Wikispaces assignment

In this particular page on Wikipedia I found pretty reliable information which cites the sources used. Looking through the history of edits I did find some errors made by attempted corrections of previous entries. One "correction" in particular was one of grammar and is actually changing the correct tense usage of a word to an incorrect one. I think that this is a great example that while the information might be reliable the little errors that can be made by an editor suggest that a person researching a topic might want to look into more accurate sources of information rather than just a website which can be edited so easily.

James McWilliams
Module 6: wikispaces assignment

This page seems fairly reliable but as always I check the sources cited. The history on this wiki shows that there have been many random alterations that seem to be corrected fairly immediately. I believe this wiki provides accurate information. The majority of edits seem to be about the nutritional values of corn and make me wonder who exactly is editing the page. Perhaps people who are trying to sell corn?

Mokhtar Elsharkawi
Module 6: wikispaces assignment

I've always admired the free flow of information in wikipedia. Although not all data is accurate, most often come from the same sources we all seek for information. Whether its books or documents, in the Global World we live in today information is shared and viewed by millions. Editing in wiki always changes and there's always new information added from different reliable sources.

Chris Hallden
Module 6 Assignment
Based off of my experience, information on wikipedia is generally trustworthy when dealing with historical and scientific facts; however, wikipedia can be unreliable, in terms of truth, in disputed and not yet understood issues. I feel that wikipedia serves as a good stage for arguments and discussions on matters not yet understood, you just need to take it with a grain of salt.

Natalie Boiton
Mod 6

When I first looked at the page, I thought the information was so specific that it must be reliable. However, there seem to be so many edits that it makes me wonder about the validity (especially when users like "Glamazon4life" are doing the editing). But I think with all of the edits that were done over a short period of time, I think they probably got the information at least mostly right, especially for this page which deals mostly with facts and not controversial topics.

Wilson Ortiz
module 6 assignment

This is a page of The Aztecs and everything that they embodied in the highlands.