When I first learned about having to read this book for class, based on the title of “The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality” and saw “Confessions of a Contributer” on the cover, I was expecting a really exciting tell-all type book. It’s not as juicy as what I was hoping for, but for the most part it’s interesting and it is very informative. It does get kind of boring and monotonous at times, though.
The author, Andrew Dalby is an English linguist, translator and historian, whose main interests are food and foreign languages. He’s also a Wikipedia insider—an active member of the site’s editing community.
Dalby begins the book with a story about how articles on Wikipedia appear and are edited, and edited, and edited again. He didn't tell me anything that I didn’t know about already, with the exception of the specific articles he referenced from the site.
Ask any 13 year old what Wikipedia is, and they can probably tell you. If there's anyone out there in the blogosphere who doesn't know--and I doubt there is, but I'll explain, anyway. Wikipedia a free, web-based, collaborative multilingual encyclopedia project that is supported by the non-profit Wikipedia Fund. It is currently the largest and most popular go-to site online when seeking general reference. People no longer go to Encyclopedia Brittanica for their information. Is this a wise decision?
There have been several studies done to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, and they show that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry on Wikipedia contained 4 errors or omissions, while Encyclopedia Brittanica had 3 (CNET News 2005).
Wikipedia strives to be a legitimate compilation of verifiable, neutral, information with no original research articles. However, its best and worst features are one in the same. Anyone can edit pretty much anything they choose to, and can do so anonymously. Even their email addresses tied to their accounts can remain anonymous. Dalby gives examples of the good and the bad participants, and shows us how one person can totally screw up an entry for no other reason than just being spiteful. He also shows us how long it can sometimes take before the “fake” information is found and corrected. Since anyone has the ability to edit virtually any content on the site, things can and do get skewed, and downright ugly sometimes. Political agendas and bias find there way in, and the most controversial topics, such as religion, race, politics, philosophy and terrorism cause the site to become a public battleground.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but like anything else on the net, and technological, it will probably continue to grow and will most likely improve as time goes on. We must remember, however, we need to take into account the authors’ accountability, reliability, vandalism, authority, accuracy, scrupulousness, and scholarly credentials. I will continue to look at Wikipedia, however, I will never, ever rely solely on the information found on that site. It's just too risky.
No comments:
Post a Comment