Links+to+wiki+history

Kristy's: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Kingdom&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_health_care&action=history Honestly I'm not sure if allowing public editing makes something less credible, or more credible. Both are possible options, at least unlike a regular website, if there is false information, someone is able to amend it. However, of course there is the possibility that any revision isn't accurate as well.

Amanda's link: [|Ancient Egyptian Farming] Controversial Topic: [|Stem Cell Research]

Michael's: [|wikipedia history page-Mummification] [|Creationism vs. Evolution history page] There is a reason that Wikipedia is not used as a credible source. The fact that anybody can edit the information damages the credibility severely. If only qualified experts were writing and editing the information that would be a different story.

Gina's: Egyptian Art & Music Wiki Abortion Debate

Danielle's: [|Ancient Egyptian Religion Wikipedia History Page] Controversial One: [|Same-Sex Marriage Wikipedia History Page] It's very hard to trust wikis for reliable information because anyone has the option of editing.

Tiffany's: Women in Ancient Egypt Controversial topic: [|Hijab in Islam] I am in agreement with Danielle. Wiki's are not really a trusted source. No one really knows who did the editing. It may have been an expert in the field but that was not likely the majority fo the time.

Marcus's: [|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_afterlife][|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&action=history]I'm not quite sure where I stand on the field of wikis. While it is true that the pages can be modified by anyone, there are moderates who watch the pages to make sure the for the most part the information is correct. I'd say that a wiki page is a good place to find information, as long as it is not your only source. Fact check and you should be ok.