How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results? In other words, since anyone can easily edit Wikipedia, how is it that good (and usually accurate) content emerges?
I like Wikipedia because it presents several different perspectives and I feel like I’m getting “all sides” of a story when I’m reading an article. It’s hard to report on a topic without having it become biased by personal views and past experiences, so by having several people write and edit a post, it seems more objective. And because everything is meant to be referenced, users can check the sources and judge for themselves the level of credibility. If I don't know anything about a subject, Wikipedia is a good first place to check because its database is so comprehensive, and generally, you can quickly find a more than adequate overview of almost any topic.
Even though it is open source and encourages public collaboration, you can't put just anything on Wikipedia. It has clearly outlined its guiding principles, and it has empowered its users to moderate discussions and enforce the core values. I work for a small marketing company (representing other small companies) so we try to come up with creative ways of increasing our web relevance without spending a lot of money. At one point, we tried to post Wikipedia pages for our clients and their technologies, but almost immediately they'd be rejected unless we could reference published articles on the topic.
I found an interesting article/interview on the culture of Wikipedia. Joseph Reagle, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, has written a book about Wikipedia and its collaborative climate. In the article, Reagle is interviewed about Wikipedia's processes, values, and bureaucracy. The article, and the comments below it, echo a lot of what is said in the case, but from a more recent perspective.
I also find Wikipedia a great choice when I do not know much about a certain topic and just want to get a quick overview of the information. Wikipedia is by no means a website used for obtaining in depth information, but it does allow for enough knowledge so that a person can understand a general overview of the material. Of course if you want to become more of an expert or use information for citing purposes, you can start by clicking on the references included at the bottom of each Wikipedia article.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has become as trusted a source of information to me as the Chicago Tribune. I would dare say that I am more likely to err on the side of Wikipedia that the Tribune because I know that People have no agenda. Organizations and groups have agendas, but not the democratically un-elected People. For this reason, I am have an incentive to provide the same factual and accurate data I come to expect from other users. I assume other users have the same sense of community.
ReplyDelete