The Reliability of Wikipedia
Edit Title Here
Everyday millions of people search the Internet looking for answers; who is Deep Throat? How did rock band “The Killers” get their name? What exactly is a Libertarian? For the most part, these people’s priority is placed in the justification rather than the jury and they will accept any popular response as valid. Google, showing Wikipedia as a top contender in many search results, and Alexa web traffic rakings would tell you that Wikipedia is very popular reference on the Internet. But when does 2+2=5?
I first discovered Wikipedia early in high school at a time when learning was a forced activity. After my discovery, I found my self going through embedded links like nobodies business; first outer space, then Jupiter, then Jupiter’s moons until eventually I realized that learning can be fun. Since then I have been visiting Wikipedia everyday to read the featured article. I consider this increased interest in learning a good thing, but I am not the only one doing it. Wikipedia has created an entire culture that can easily find answers to curious questions, and is doing it daily.
Unfortunately though, like with many newfound abilities, people find a need to boast or present and will stand behind their name. An example could be shown like this: I have a piece of information that I don’t see presented to the public anywhere else. I then get more satisfaction in the thought of me showing this information to people rather than the information being completely flawless. Next, I quickly publish my information using the easiest medium to do so. When doing more research on other published information, I find it to imply my information has flaws. “If only I could edit their information and show that my label is ‘completely true’.”
You see this a lot in Wikipedia; people changing controversial dates because their politically active middle school history teacher pounded one into their head. Vandalism, such as pornography, random pictures, profanity, etc. is easy to spot. What’s not easy to see is the majority of the errors; the ones dealing in opinion. I think that because Wikipedia and its users are young they have a hard time understanding how this whole, “publicly created database” idea works, since it hasn’t been done before (at least to this magnitude). As time goes on and people read more articles like this one, Wikipedia will become more stable. In the future people might decide to add a “citation needed” tag at the end of the sentence instead of quickly altering it to what they know correct. But until then, I have raised a stake on the current controversy.
Having researched the reliability of Wikipedia and having understood the viewpoints of all stakeholders, I have created a quality opinion on the controversial issue. I look at Wikipedia simply as an organized version of the Internet. Users will visit the webcity in search of information and will find answers, but should use the same precautions they would when doing any other Internet research. Wikipedia is a great place to curiously stroll through, learning various things, but like most primary research, I would not stamp my name on something who’s creation has been principally created through the Internet.
Through Encyclopedia Britannica, The Library Journal, New Scientist, Nature, The Boston Globe
Loading …November 27 2007 10:20 pm | Misc and Thoughts
