I randomly chose three topics to search on Wikipedia. The topis were the guillotine, The American Revolution, and the Battle of the Alamo. As indicated in the how to read an article history wiki page, I came across edit wars, suspected vandalism, grammar and spelling police, as well as non-sourced citations, and people reverting each other’s inputs regardless of which article history I was viewing. I learned early on in my college career, that Wikipedia is an unreliable, and unacceptable source for the purpose of historical research, based on the fact that it was open to the public for edit. However, this was my first time seeing how the edit process works and looks on screen. These are some examples of edits that I saw.
-cut discursive material not related to discourse
-Removed a superfluous section already covered in earlier paragraph
-English language source translated from French (this one not so militant)
The American Revolution:
-Removing heavy handed bias in favor of neutrality
-Unscrambling this Godawful mess removing stupid redundant links
-Removing paragraphs that make no sense
Battle of the Alamo:
Removed irrelevant, inaccurate information about the Battle of San Jacinto
-Not all died at least a couple escaped
-Sieges don’t have climaxes
After reading these edit histories, it is clear that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because of the instability of the information. It is also not a very good option for presenting any research or history digitally, considering that someone will likely revert your input for whatever reasons they see fit.