Groups GOOD!'s Arguements

Argument :easy to use and learn

Wikis are instantaneous. So there is no need to wait for a publisher to create a new edition or update information.People located in different parts of the world can work on the same document.The wiki software keeps track of every edit made and it's a simple process to revert back to a previous version of an article widens access to the power of web publishing to non-technical users. The wiki has no predetermined structure - consequently. It is a flexible tool which can be used for a wide range of applications there are a wide range of open source software wiki's to choose from so licensing costs shouldn't be a barrier to installing an institutional wiki.

Criticize: The information may not accurate.
Support:  Just recently the National Institute of Health launched a new initiative to encourage their scientists to edit or start new Wikipedia entries on their area of expertise to ensure that the correct information on health issues is cited. “Wikipedia articles (there are more than 2.9 million of them in English) can be initiated and edited by anyone who can access the website. Quality is informally monitored by fellow users, who can make corrections and change the text freely. All information that is posted is supposed to include citations so a reader can check the primary sources of the data,”  Washington Post article stated.

suggestion: check the primary sources which Wikipedia provided.