Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.
Wikipedia was founded as an offshoot of Nupedia, a now-abandoned project to produce a free encyclopedia. Nupedia had an elaborate system of peer review and required highly qualified contributors, but the writing of articles was seen as very slow. During 2000, Jimmy Wales, founder of Nupedia, and Larry Sanger, whom Wales had employed to work on the project, discussed various ways to supplement Nupedia with a more open, complementary project.
Using Wiki software, Wikipedia came about. Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in many ways. First, the articles are never complete. They are continually edited and improved over time, and in general this results in an upward trend of quality. Second, Wikipedia depends on “radical decentralization and self-organization.” Wikipedia is “self-repairing and almost alive.” Wikipedia’s ability to allow almost anyone to edit information follows a One for All Model, while traditional encyclopedias follow a One Best Way model, where after research and data are written, they tend to stay static.
Wikipedia relies on good faith and neutrality. But because it is an open source, it is susceptible to many problems. Vandalism being the main problem. But because of the defense mechanisms that are built into Wikipedia and because it has many dedicated users who readily change wrong and inappropriate content, “Wikipedia has an innate capacity to heal itself.” Not to mention, Wikipedia has administrators and bureaucrats to ensure that vandals get ousted. Another problem is credibility. Because there is no scholarly review of these articles, and that no one needs a doctoral degree to write or edit content, it is not considered a reliable source in the academics. However, Pink sates that it is difficult to evaluate Wikipedia with traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia follows a different model, it’s free, it’s dynamic, and it does not claim to be infallible. Wikipedia is never finished, unlike traditional encyclopedias, which actually enhances its quality.
Wikipedia is a great source when you need to be an expert on a topic really quickly. And it’s free. I’ve compared information on Wikipedia to other ‘credible’ sources, and almost always the information matches quite perfectly. But since anyone can write and edit content on Wikipedia, I can understand why it’s not a valid resource in any academic field. Those who make a living out of doing research probably want special validation and respect for their work. And it’s only fair. Which is why most classes of all fields require scholarly work to be cited. But it doesn’t undervalue Wikipedia in any way. It’s a great forum for those who want to present their knowledge to the world, but don’t have all the information or expertise to complete it with perfection. Such information is then brought to the attention to those who care and it then molds into something that is of high quality and accuracy. It brings a community of people together who share the same passion for certain ideas and want to make it right for the world to see. It further adds to the jungle of information that’s out there, with an attempt to make topics as succinct and clear possible for the average person to understand. It’s a fabulous invention.
No comments:
Post a Comment