The controversial topic I chose to read about using Wikipedia was abortion. Given that the information contributed in a Wikipedia article comes from many anonymous sources changes how I evaluate only some of the contents of abortion that I read. The contents that I trust a bit more on this subject are the facts in the article. Such as the definition of abortion, the history of it, the procedure, the safety etc. I trust anything that I know cannot be argued or quarreled and that can be proven by science. However, given that multiple sources can anonymously add information to Wikipedia, I usually do not trust any information that could possibly be biased or anything that could be opinionated.
A few pros to Wikipedia include that you can find almost any topic you could ever think of on Wikipedia. Its range of information is one of the largest in the world for a search engine. Also, most articles have links and resources embedded throughout the entire thing, so if you don’t understand a word, a subject, or who someone is, there is almost always a link attached to it that you can click on to learn more about it. However, with these pros come a few obvious cons. The first and the biggest is the fact that most of the information comes from multiple anonymous sources. This could very easily lead to biased information and sometimes completely false information. Also, since Wikipedia is free, that usually means that less time and money has been involved in creating the articles for the information you are reading. Overall, Wikipedia is and can be a very useful source for information, however, if you’re writing a paper or researching a topic, it is probably best that you use Wikipedia as a starting point to understand the general idea, and definitely should not stick to it as your only source.