Oh, Wikipedia...

I must say that I do not find Wikipedia to be a completely valid source. Afterall, they do let anyone edit their information. And secondly, they do not site their sources well...and that becomes a problem for citation purposes in a Works Cited page. Plus, one doesn't know exactly who is saying this information, who knows who it could be. I chose an article on Wikipedia that deals with teen pregnancy and premarital sex. In this article, many times "studies" are referred to along with various data. I can't help but wonder if this "data" is correct and was part of a legit actual study or not. Afterall, how am I to know....I have not seen the source for myself, nor are there any citations to allow me to look it up. Granted there are certain citations that are available throughout an average Wikipedia article, but there may not be enough information in the citation to be able to look up the source for more information than what is presented in Wikipedia. However, one thing I do like about Wikipedia is that they have a related source/website page, which tells about various other sites that may have related information. And granted, some of the websites they release and link to may not be the most reliable of source material, but there are also a lot of good apples in the barrel....one just has to search through it. My article, Fornication deals with teenage pregnancy in different countries mostly. Throughout the article it goes into various reasoning behind why and what happens as a result to the lives of the people, how this affects living conditions and such, while also included, are stats from various sources, some cited and others not. Overall, i believe this is an article with a lot of potential but has maybe just not given all it could if it would have been done with more scholarly reasearch and input.

Ignorance...bliss?

“Ignorance is bliss” Everyone says it. But do they really believe what it’s says? Do they examine what they’re saying? The answer is, usually, no. They don’t think about what it truly means because “everyone” else says it and does not think about what it means. As Mark Twain suggests, man, usually, conforms to his society’s views, taking on opinions without rationalizing them for himself.
While in some situations, ignorance can be bliss, we can never be completely ignorant; otherwise we would cease to function. For example, if someone were to be dropped from the sky completely ignorant of everything, he might look at a bus coming down the road toward him and have heart failure. Even worse, he might look in the mirror and kill over, who knows. Okay, now here’s less extreme example. Someone does not know of world hunger organizations. Let’s even go further; they don’t know of world hunger and that people are dying in different countries all over the world. Now, if this person does not know of this sadness, then they won’t be as sorrowful as that of the people that know. But on the other hand, one can argue that not knowing is just as sorrowful as knowing. If one does not know, then they can not help and if they can not help then they are letting people die, when they could be saving lives. Therefore, the question arises, Is it more sorrowful to not help or help? I think most would agree that it is more sorrowful to let people starve and die. In theory, one would be exchanging their happiness for another’s. You would be unhappy because you know, but by helping someone, you make them less miserable. And because your helping someone, you receive joy, most likely, and therefore regain happiness. Therefore, to answer the question plainly, no. I do not believe that "ignorance is bliss" in all cases.