Is Wikipedia beneficial?

   Websites such as Wikipedia serve as great idea as a reference. Wikipedia is combination of a encyclopedia and a dictionary in one. However, this doesn't mean that it should be used as a primary source. Wikipedia should rather be used as a secondary source.Why? because this information is readily available to everyone and any person could make a change to it.

  This is one of the disadvantages of Wikipedia is that it is open to vandalism via trolling or internet harassing. But via crowd-sourcing helps an user control what they write and how to write it. This type of action by moderators on typed material too interact with the user and sway them to write the right thing instead of the wrong thing. This type of encouragement allows for the correct flow of information.

   Some ways that could increase participation for Wikipedia users is the spreading the need for knowledge. Maybe a social media campaign with the hashtag #wikispreadsknowledge could get out there on the internet and convince people to get involved. Getting involved would put down the need for trolling and help build the pursuit for knowledge.

 
   

ProPublica

               ProPublica uses a creative commons license because it wants to share its work with others. Their works being available for republication means it can be built upon because of what the license includes. According to an article on written by Scott Klein and Richard Tofel on  ProPublica titled:Why we use Creative Commons licenses on our stories, "ProPublica’s mission is for our journalism to have impact — that is, for it to spur reform." Propublica wants to make a difference with their writing.
                       How does this benefit audiences? Because it allows for a greater reach then normal with online articles. It makes an impact on these audiences which can equate to the difference the company wants. This allows users to republish their work while also giving the website credit. Also, users cannot make whole changes to the article. Only some to words within the article can be changed. Only changes in time, location and editorial style can be done. This makes a difference for how both creative commons and ProPublica differ from traditional media.
                        An example of this is how the website makes money apart from traditional articles. In the same article the authors write, " we see no reason why others should be able to sell our work without sharing the proceeds with us.(Klein and Tofel)"  As long as proceeds are shared than this fine. Whereas, with traditional media, advertising is used with other articles and the money goes back to the backer. This makes it easier for the staff at ProPublica.
                           ProPublica can be a example for the future of Journalism because it shares profits unlike others where the company wants to keep all the funds for itself. Working together as stated in the article makes it easier on both writers and publishers.