Wikipedia is a great thing. The fact that anyone can contribute to an article is one of its best features. Besides making philosophical claims about Wikipedia being a collective project that anyone with internet access can share their knowledge and be a part of, there is a more practical reason why this is a good feature. Wikipedia is a continually growing project with millions of entries, while according to the Runciman article, Encyclopedia Britannica managed to add only 300,000 entries (for a total of 700,000) in the eighteen years between 1989 and 2007.
Wikipedia’s egalitarian policy toward editing allows for it to grow exponentially. Even if a more traditional encyclopedia had many more scholars working on the project, they would not be able to keep up with Wikipedia’s growth. Scholarly articles, where all the facts are checked, take a lot longer to write. Also, there is no way that a set of books could be big enough to hold all the entries that Wikipedia does. And as new editions of a set of encyclopedias are produced yearly at most, it is not possible for scholars to keep up with the change of information the way an online encyclopedia can.
At the same time, Wikipedia is not written by scholars. I would never personally use it for a report or research paper. Not only do I mean to say I would not cite a Wikipedia article (because one shouldn’t be citing any encyclopedic entry), I would not trust the information that I found on Wikipedia. This is especially true if it was something that I was unsure enough about to have to be looking the information up in the first place. Scrutinizing the quality of information available on the internet is important to remember, whether one is writing a report or not. This is why more scholarly sources like Encyclopedia Britannica will continue to be important in the future. I use Wikipedia all the time, like if I happen to be curious where Belarus is, but I would not trust most of the facts I read there without double checking them. A traditional encyclopedia may be more selective about its entries, but one can be reasonably sure that the information they read is of a good quality.
I think this relates to some of the other ideas I have been formulating this semester. I think there is a lot to be said for newer technologies, like EBooks. But for now at least, I do not think they are going to completely obsolete the older, more reliable technologies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like Wikipedia as an idea. It started out as a cool experiment about knowledge, perhaps anarchic knowledge. But it seems to have devolved into a less egalitarian version of its former self. The anarchy has been replaced with a semblance of order. Instead of everyone being an editor with equal say, some editors are now more equal than others. I fear it's a sad commentary on the nature of internet users and the future of the internet itself. Good ideas and good ideals will fall by the wayside, succumbing to the stern taskmaster of order for the compromise of the alleged greater good. I realize that I am stretching the truth to make my point and Wikipedia still clings to much of its original spirit. But that's not nearly cynical enough and not as much fun.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has been a great tool for me to get basic information on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge about, and especially geography-related info (which I usually have absolutely no knowledge about, too). Besides, when you type something into the search bar, wikipedia is usually the first website to be listed. They make it too damn easy for us! Anyway, I do think it's a good idea and I definitely agree, as should anybody with any sort of academic sense, that it should never be cited or taken as the end-all for useful information. But we all already know that, so why even repeat?
ReplyDeleteI like Wikipedia as well. A long while back before I really knew about Wikipedia, I used it as a basic means of research, but now I only use it to find out something about an entertainer or something, but even then, I question that information. As already mentioned by Sarah, Wikipedia makes it difficult not to use it since, in many cases, it is the first option listed.
ReplyDeleteI think Wikipedia as an experiment is an interesting idea. My concern is not myself or the educated members of society such as your selves using it as a credible source of information, but rather the general masses who might mistake it as such. I think it is fine for information to be collected and distributed in a democratic way but I don't necessarily think that all the knowledge will be accurate. To reiterate some of your points, it's up to us to continue researching in order to confirm or negate our findings.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is an amazing experiment that has succeeded. Keith has a valid argument that it is no longer as egalitarian as it used to be but the problem seems to be some internet users use their anonymity to disturb shit. These SD's can serve a very important purpose but it seems like many of these SD's only purpose is to entertain themselves or prove themselves superior to other people by creating problems for other people. There is a lot of pathological behavior on the net.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with a certain amount of control being exerted on Wikipedia if it means the information I get is mostly right.
That being said I am very concerned with the issue of net neutrality. One of my biggest concerns is that some of the people against net neutrality are their own worst enemies. I want the i8nternet to remain free and it will as long as the majority of people aren't frightened into wanting more internet controls by the people that support net neutrality through pathological behavior on the net.