The other Wiki

21/01/2011

Comments: 8 readers have left a comment

WHILE another ‘wiki’ has been getting most of the attention of late, Wikipedia, (a combination of the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning quick and the US spelling of encyclopedia) celebrated its 10th birthday recently.

Since its launch on January 15, 2001 Wikipedia’s  most unique feature, that anyone can create and edit articles, has been frequently cited by critics as a reason to disregard it.

Telling someone you learnt something by reading it on Wikipedia will more often than not illicit snide retorts “you can’t believe anything you read on Wikipedia” if not outright derision.

I think a fair amount of the negativity directed at Wikipedia is a result of the (misguided) notion that information in a book is always more trustworthy than information online merely by virtue of it being in a book.

I believe, however, that Wikipedia is one of the most important websites, and indeed cultural innovations, of the past 50 years.

It is certainly one of the most ambitious, with founder Jimmy Wales ambitiously aiming to be the Library of Alexandria of the internet age.

In 2004 he said “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing”

A lofty goal, especially for a group of volunteers relying entirely on donations for revenue, but one that is starting to seem less far fetched with every passing day and accompanying 200,000 page edits.

The fact that Mr Wales has resisted all attempts to monetise Wikepidia, despite it being one of the most visited sites on the web is also admirable.

That anyone can edit and create pages on Wikipedia is not only the main criticism levelled at the site, but also its greatest strength.

Take a look at any discussion page for an article and you will be amazed at the level of detail and knowledge shown by the 100,000 or so regular contributors that are responsible for over 90 per cent of articles and edits.

Unlike books, you can look under the hood of an article and see the discussion that led to facts being presented in a certain way.

Unlike a book, if you disagree with the way something has been presented on Wikipedia, you are free to make a contribution and set the record straight, so to speak.

Similarly, any information posted that is not referenced adequately will be removed, and anyone can check the veracity of the references simply by following the links.

While being open to editing by anyone leaves the site vulnerable to vandalism and errors, it is also its best defence.

Any incorrect or poorly referenced information is quickly found and rectified by the many thousands of contributors.

Respected science journal Nature did a study in 2005 which found the Encyclopaedia Britanica and Wikipedia each had a similar number of errors.

None of this is to say that Wikipedia is perfect or that reference books are useless.

It is important to acknowledge however, that the way information is being collated and disseminated has been revolutionised by the internet, and in no small part because of Wikipedia.

It is often said that knowledge is power.

And, by giving anyone in the world not only access to, but the ability to contribute to the world’s store of knowledge, Wikipedia truly is giving power to the people.

Bookmark and Share

Reader Comments

Pule Les Klosd

21/01/2011 at 10:11

I believe the bad rap Wikepedia receives as an unworthy source of information comes from the older generations and their inexperience with danfangled computers.

Whereas a book is a trusted old source of information from days gone by (usually from one point of view), Wikipedia is creating a new age of information, which as this fantastic journalist wrote, can be edited and discussed upon by a number of people to give the (hopefully) most accurate portrail.

Bravo Journalist, yet another fantastic blog.

Ryan

21/01/2011 at 13:30

When I was in primary school my parents had an old hard copy of the encyclopaedia Britannica which took up most the living room bookshelf. I opened a book amongst the collection perhaps 3 times.

Then, as I entered highschool again my parents thinking of my intellectual developement shelled out $2000 dollars for the whole Britannica edition on one CD. (DVD's were not around yet). I spent hours up hours scouring that resource from reading about ancient civilisations to listening to the first moon landing.

And then the internet came and with it Wikipedia and Google. Shortly following smart phones. So now if I ever need to know anything I just whip out my phone and assuming I have some patience and reception I can be the smartest person in the room.

The question is, however, does this reliance on easily accessable knowledge reduce individual knowledge learnt -- dumbing us down as a species?

Stbz

21/01/2011 at 15:24

Wikipedia is indeed good and important, but surely Urbandictionary should be considered a better and more revolutionary resource?

Natty

25/01/2011 at 17:49

Ryan, how can instant access to information dumb us down?
I would argue that the ability to access more information allows us to accumulate more knowledge then ever before, and being informed leads to making better decisions.

Post a comment

 

Tuesday 22 May 2012

  • Min 8°C
  • Max 22°C

Wednesday

  • 9 - 21°C

Thursday

  • 8 - 22°C

Latest Blog Articles


email subscribe linkHBF junior sports hero
Deliver our newspapers linkCommunityPix banner linkSolahart