Wikipedia - the site of six billion contributors
Friday, August 24, 2007
I refer to the article "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems" (
link) as published by The Register.
Wikipedia has often been seen in the news, usually in a negative light. There are many articles on the Internet bemoaning the unreliability of Wikipedia, due to the fact that any Internet user who wishes to may freely edit the information on Wikipedia, and this may mar the credibility of the information. I for one know that this has become a constant debate in schools: students such as myself like to use Wikipedia, as it is a convenient online encyclopedia covering almost every topic known to the world; however, most teachers snub the website, believing that the information can sometimes be flawed, either due to online vandals who may edit the information on the website with the intention of misleading other users, or unprofessional article writers who may not know their facts.
I chose this article because it succinctly expresses the view of most netizens, even if the article was nowhere near subjective in its criticism of Wikipedia. It revealed that even the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, admitted that the easily-edited website had ‘serious quality problems’. Also, the writer understood that there were two main problems with Wikipedia – the non-factuality of the articles and the quality with which the articles were written.
Admittedly, I use Wikipedia very often for my projects. Wikipedia has its virtues as well – it covers a wide range of topics, and unlike print encyclopedias, it can be updated anytime without much hassle. With anyone being allowed to edit articles, it is updated very often as well. I remember seeing an article on the death of Steve Irwin’s death the day after the incident. Indeed, in a school-based context, with more brains and hands to work, the intellectual exchanges and manpower of group work normally produce a result superior to that of an individually done work, and in less time.
However, as the clichéd adage goes, too many cooks spoil the broth – and in this case, we’re looking at a potential six billion cooks, with the widespread influence of the Internet. With so many differing opinions, there may possibly be tugs-of-war, with every netizen wanting to express his opinion. Also, some of the cooks (pardon the extended metaphor) may not have the culinary expertise required for good broth, thus spoiling it.
The Wikipedia fanatics think otherwise, however. They feel that if people are not satisfied with the information on Wikipedia, they can always edit it themselves. A valid point, but they are assuming that everyone is like them, and has a passion for editing articles. Most people, like me, visit the website to get information, not to edit any mistakes there. However, their chagrin and indignation is understandable. I understand that many Wikipedia fanatics spend whole hours on the computer, browsing articles and helping to correct or add to them – the Wikipedia equivalent of a ranger - and now, there are people accusing the online encyclopedia of being unprofessional and poorly written. The article concedes that there are people who believe religiously in Wikipedia, and insulting the website would be tantamount to questioning someone’s religion.
At the end of the day, I feel that neither camp has gotten the measure of the issue completely. Wikipedia was created with the aim of a utopian community – all benevolent, specializing in a specific field, and helping to share information with the world – in mind, but this is obviously not the case, as online vandals and unprofessional writers have demonstrated. Perhaps Wikipedia should be more exclusive with regards to the people who are allowed to edit the articles – this would be a fitting compromise between both extremist schools of thought.
give me a good grade pleeeease! 11:20 PM