For me, being brought up in today’s age of technology, such things like Wikipedia have always simply been there for my research/curious needs. I personally always felt that Wikipedia was a good place to do some quick research for a quick read and synopsis of information, but I never truly considered it to be a vital or accurate site for my researching needs for school. I feel like my entire scholarly career has been filled with pro and anti Wikipedia debate and I am still unsure where to stand in regards to the situation.
I feel that the general idea of people from all different backgrounds, education, and age can share information online with ease while correcting wrong information and posting it for the common good. However, it is no news that there are people out there who simply love to mess everything up and not play by the rules. After putting some thought into what Wikipedia stands for, I feel that it is much like communism— Wikipedia works extremely well in some cases, but it is not bulletproof. Ideally, Wikipedia works extremely well and potentially can be the most effective and efficient way of sharing information, however, this is an idea that will only probably work as well as Jimmy Wales conceives on paper.
Do not get me wrong, I am an avid Wikipedia user. I love being able to search the most obscure and random things with ease, I would not however consider Wikipedia to be a credible, scholarly source because it is so prone to errors and hackings from people with nothing better to do on a Monday night.
I'm definitely guilty of searching a particular topic and feeling a sense of comfort when I see the Wikipedia article on the list of web results. I agree with you that it is by no means a good way of researching a college paper, but what percentage of our knowledge do those make up? I think that dissenters may lean a little too heavily on "anyone's" ability to edit the site however they please. Like the article said, Wales has taken steps to ensuring that things cannot get out of control. Only small edits can be made and those are immediately up for inspection by an "admin." It isn't, like you say, bulletproof, but it is something that other mediums can't say. I read something in the New York Times a few weeks ago about a veteran reporter that plagiarized something like 10 out of 11 paragraphs from another report on the same subject. I see the comparison of the two situations as the ability to quickly squash any information that is libelous, fraudulent, or just plain incorrect. The reporter's paper didn't issue a correction until a few weeks later, in which time the corresponding Wikipedia article would have been corrected, wrongly edited, corrected again, and so on about five times. I don't know which is better.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely difficult to go about picking a side on the topic. The idea that Wales decided to make into a reality was revolutionary but also risky. It is hard to say what will become of it in five years, but it is also uncertain whether encyclopedias like Britannica will still be relevant.
ReplyDelete