Wikipedia (Part Two)

Wikipedia (Part Two)

In the second half of Andrew Dalby's book The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality the author reiterates his initial thoughts while delving into more specific aspects of Wikipedia. He discusses why we love, don’t trust, but will trust Wikipedia. First of all, we love Wikipedia because it’s the Walmart of information acquisition, that is, you can find pretty much some kind of information on almost any topic known to man – it’s a one-stop shop for general knowledge. We can enter a keyword in the search box within Wikipedia and get the results (the information) in the blink of an eye. We also love Wikipedia because we can contribute. We can share the knowledge we have. We can write about whatever we want – anything from the pencil to Galloping Gertie. The idea of collective intelligence makes us believe that Wikipedia is a great source for knowledge. I personally believe that it’s a great source for initial knowledge.

But some of the same reasons we love Wikipedia make us question its credibility. Anyone can contribute so anyone can provide misinformation and disinformation as easily as they can correct information. Information also changes, and no one is really in charge of updating every article. Contributors only provide information to whatever subject or topic interests them, whatever they feel like doing. There is no real structure for monitoring to ensure every article is correct and up-to-date. So why should we trust anonymous sources of information who could be maliciously disinforming the public?

Maybe we shouldn’t be so hesitant in using Wikipedia. I understand that anonymity in Wikipedia can promote vandalism, or at least it does not discourage it. But the information available on Wikipedia is generally posted with the intentions of collective intelligence. Also Dalby describes that there are ways to moderate vandalism on the site.

Wikipedia is a great starting point for information gathering. I would recommend that if you're not sure that the information on Wikipedia is correct, go to the sources.