Wiki Wisdom

By: Jordan Rowe

Wikipedia was credited this year at the Webby Awards as one of the most influential moments on the Internet in the past decade. The free open-source encyclopedia launched in 2001 and now boasts of more than 14 million articles in 271 different languages. The distribution of knowledge Wikipedia supplies to today’s society has received great praise and stiff criticism. Articles are written and edited collaboratively by volunteers around with the world. Reuters reports that Wikipedia has become the most popular go-to site for general reference work on the internet. Whether for research on a school report or general knowledge questions, the world is driven to the site that has all the answers. Individuals merely have to type in a subject of question, and receive just about all known information of relevance on that topic. Talk about the best thing since sliced bread! Wikipedia has also received acknowledgement as a news source because of how quickly their articles about recent events appear. When Time magazine named “You” the Person of the Year in 2006, it cited Wikipedia alongside Facebook, Youtube, and Myspace as transforming society. So how could anyone dislike this social phenomenon? The answers lie in Wikipedia’s inconsistencies.

Because Wikipedia is accessible by almost anyone, its reliability and accuracy has come to be questioned by many critics in the world of academia. As a college student I can vouch for the fact that many college professors discourage or prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a primary source in a bibliography. There is no question that errors exist within the site. But, Wikipedia has worked overtime in recent years to increase its credibility. Articles that contain vandalism, no proper references, or explicit material are removed or tagged very soon after they are posted to the site. In addition, Nature magazine did a study in 2005 comparing Wikipedia’s scientific articles to those of the more traditional Encyclopedia Britannica. Surprisingly, they found Wikipedia’s articles came extremely close to those of Encyclopedia Britannica’s, though Britannica has disputed this claim. Thus, the wiki bias may no longer have as much weight as in previous years. More than anything else, Wikipedia exemplifies the lack of trust academia has in any source not penned by someone with a doctor’s degree. They refuse to buy into the grassroots nature of the internet. But, let me break it to you. The distribution of knowledge offered by Wikipedia is just one step in a wide array of future steps towards a more active, prosumer culture. Whether good or bad, it’s not going away. So as the old saying goes…if you can’t take the heat…get out of the street!