When we talk about Wikipedia, I believe that almost all people have used of it. Wikipedia is a very quickly and convenience online tool for searching information. It covers almost all types of issues and topics, so people often search information by it when they do not have any idea about something. It seems like encyclopedia which has explanations and relevant information about almost everything. However, Wikipedia takes a new way for producing information which is about everyone can edit and change information on Wikipedia and people can talk about their views and thoughts what they want on Wikipedia. People can know about some basic information for everything and also know more things how the public discuss and talk about topics and issues. While, I have a question to ask—–is this way really to reveal democracy or others?

I use the typical example which is War of 1812 on Wikipedia. This issue exists many debates and critic thoughts by different people, even there is no consequence about who won in this battle. On wikipedia, it introduces many basic historical information about this battle at the first, then at the bottom there are many discussions about who won in the battle—-British and Canada or America? For these debates, Americans said that America is the really winner in this battle, but many others people said that British and Canada won in the battle. I do not want to talk about this complex historical problem, I focus on why there are many discussions appear on wikipedia. As before said, Wikipedia can be edited and changed by everyone. If someone is interested in some issues and topics, they can type anything what they want on wikipedia. I think that there is no authority on Wikipedia because there is no one can judge which information are totally right or wrong. People do not know who edit and change information, even they do not know others’ backgrounds of knowledge and anything, so it is hard to judge whether wikipedia is an authority website of information or not.

I have to say this way which collects all information from everyone is good for democracy. Because it does not care about who edit and change information on wikipedia and there is no hierarchy of backgrounds of knowledge. Not only special professional people can say something, everyone has right to talk about their own views of public issues and topics. This way really reveals that people have much freedom to their speeches. It shows much more democracy in the public. While, we have to notice that there are some potential problems of wikipedia. As above said that everyone can edit can change information on wikipedia, there are some wrong information on it to express to the public and someone plays tricks on the public which express wrong and funny information purposely. These have no responsibility to the public, even some serious critics can cause some social unrest somehow.

As myself, I use wikipedia very frequently and I used to believe that this is a trustful website to use. Then when I learn some more about wikipedia in my the other communication course, I know about it is not reliable information tool to use and I also understand professors always told us that we can not use wikipedia resources to be our evidence in our papers. Therefore, I think I do not have enough confidence to wikipedia and I just use it to be a basic information to know some popular issues because I have to say it is very quickly and convenience website to use.

In conclude, I used the example of War of 1812 to address whether wikipedia reflects democracy or not. We still use wikipedia and we like to comment on it when we want to or are interested in, but we have to think about whether we have responsibility to express our views to the public.

This is link of War of 1812 on wikipedia:


part of the image of war of 1812