What do you do when you need to look something up? Go to the library? Open an encyclopedia? Click on to the internet? These days, most people go straight to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. But how reliable (可靠) is it?
There’s no denying the popularity and usefulness of Wikipedia. It attracts 78 million visitors every month, and the site is available (可用的) in more than 270 different languages. It’s one of the most comprehensive (综合的) resources available, and it’s got much more information than an ordinary encyclopedia. The site is updated on a daily basis by thousands of people around the world. Anyone with an internet connection can log on and edit the contents or add a new page. And you don’t need any formal training.
Of course, there are some controls. Wikipedia has a team of more than 1,500 administrators (管理员) who check for false information. But with more than 16 million articles to keep an eye on, it isn’t easy. So, while Wikipedia benefits from being constantly updated with information from all over the world, it’s also open to “vandals” (故意破坏公物的人).
Some of the damage is easy to notice. One prankster (恶作剧者) drew devil horns and a moustache on Microsoft chairman Bill Gate’s photo, while another edited Greek philosopher Plato’s biography to say he was a “Hawaiian weather man”.
But other things are harder to spot. The most common form of vandalism involves adding tiny items of false information into the biography of a famous person. Some of this misinformation has even appeared in newspapers, with The Daily Mail, The Guardian and The Independent all having fallen victim (牺牲者) to the pranks. For example, in an introduction for British comedian Sir Norman Wisdom, one newspaper claimed that he co-wrote Dame Vera Lynn’s wartime hit “There’ll be Bluebirds over the White Cliffs of Dover”. He did no such thing. And in another article, it was reported that TV theme tune composer Ronnie Hazlehurst had written the song “Reach”. Once again, not true.
So, if you’re going to use any information from Wikipedia, make sure you double-check it first.
36. If you want to look something up on Wikipedia, you will find ________.
A.it is only available in English | B.it has little useful information |
C.you can only get the information online | D.you need to go to a library to use it |
37. According to the article, what is NOT an advantage enjoyed by Wikipedia over that of an ordinary encyclopedia?
A.It is available online in many different languages. |
B.It may contain more false information than an ordinary encyclopedia. |
C.It has a team of administrators to check for false information. |
D.It’s content can be updated every day. |
38. The examples of the pranks are cited (引用) to ________.
A.let you know that false information is inevitable on the site |
B.urge Wikipedia to set stricter controls over its contents |
C.criticize the right that the public has to edit the contents on the site |
D.demonstrate the downsides of public editing allowed by Wikipedia |
39. It can be learned from the article that ________.
A.pranksters aren’t likely to edit the information about famous people |
B.some mainstream newspapers also refer to the false information from Wikipedia |
C.the public is not allowed by Wikipedia to edit the information about famous people |
D.the Wikipedia administrators don’t work hard enough to check for false information on the site |
40. What can we learn from the last paragraph?
A.We should not use Wikipedia. |
B.The information from Wikipedia is not reliable. |
C.We should not trust the information from Wikipedia. |
D.We should make sure the information from Wikipedia is correct before deciding to use it. |