Every week we'll be having our "Weekly Weigh-in", a discussion about any topic that is currently being debated around the office.
As our first installment of the Weekly Weigh-in, we'll focus on the digital age-old debate of Wikipedia, with its unmoderated socially-generated user content versus legacy print encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica.
We'd like to have you weigh-in on this topic:
- Do you consider Wikipedia the epitome of open-source collaboration or do you see it as fundamentally flawed?
- Although Wikipedia is a more up-to-date resource, does it have as much legitimacy as print sources?
- In what cases would/should one turn to Wikipedia as a resource?
-Owen
5 comments:
A debate about Wikipedia?!? No way!
Here are my 2 cs on this whole debate - note: others may strongly disagree with my comments, but who cares ;)
Everybody's perceptions are limited, in some ways, our knowledge is always biased (because of experience, choices, agendas, etc.). Hence, everything becomes a matter of opinion or consensus.
Mind you, the only thing that escapes this condition is "logical science" (e.g. mathematics, as it is a pure mind creation with a specific set of rules called logic).
So why can't Wikipedia be a legitimate multi-view encyclopedia? This encyclopedia should be as diverse as the internet (a reflection of our diverse perspectives) is.
Having said that, Wikipedia is always going to be source of debate and some unscrupulous people are going to infiltrate it(inciting all sorts of bigotry: racism, religious fanatism, intolerance), but it can be balanced with proper commentary, and some kind of poll where people can tell what opinion is more useful/accepted (this even may change in time).
Can we be so arrogant to think there's only one way to interpret every thing in life?
I think we shouldn't.
Well, first I think that it is hardly fair to say that wikipedia is unmoderated. It is heavily moderated, though the moderators are not the same as a paid editorial staff that would be behind and encyclopedia. I have always found wikipedia to be rather useful and reliable. Its ease of use for looking up something you don't have to be 100% on and being up to date to the minute, well hour or so, makes it at least as valuable as resource as any print encyclopedia.
I do agree that Wikipedia a new , sexy , exciting thing that is happening but that’s all.
In order for any statement to be true, when one makes a statement that person either needs to be an expert in that field or the statement needs to be backed up by data which is referenced. Otherwise, the statement is simply someone’s opinion, and there is nothing wrong with opinions except that most of the time they are wrong.
When someone looks up a word like “photosynthesis” they are assured that the explanation that they get from Britannica Encyclopedia is correct, valid and is backed up by data. When the same word is looked up on Wikipedia, there is a chance that it will have a valid explanation but there is also a chance that some fanatic-against-evolution-lunatic would say that it’s the work of satan. And no one has control over that.
Therefore Wikipedia is very flawed in a sense that it is controlled by the same people who post the entries and not by a true editorial staff.
Wikipedia is the ‘epitome of open-source collaboration’. It’s my first place to look when brainstorming and getting a quick summary on a topic. It’s very fast and free! I am not alone in this thinking, as it’s already ranking sixth on the web in terms of unique hits a day (as of December 2006). And, as of April 2007, Wikipedia has over 280,000 volunteers creating and editing over 5.3 million encyclopedia entries in more than 100 languages! At the end of the day, there is nothing directly competing with it.
In its present state, Wikipedia is not a replacement for Encyclopedia Britannica. They are two different and distinct entities. Encyclopedia Britannica is the classic reference created and edited by experts for research. It tends to be high on accuracy, slow and cumbersome to use, and limited in terms of breath of content.
Hence, there is currently a place for both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica in this world. The real question is: What if Wikipedia moves in the direction of more control and credibility checking; could it become a fully credible source?
Sidebar: I use Wikipedia even more the Google search now, as the results get me to more complete information, faster. Will Wikipedia start to grab more of the search business?
I agree with "m"... I think it boils down to "utility" more than "accuracy". I find Wikipedia my first stop more often than Google any more. So that speaks to how much utility it provides. I know that it may not always be 100% (or even 80%) accurate. But sometimes you just need some information to get your bearings and do more research. Even like good print-based research practices from the "olden days", you always want to have several, corroborating sources. So why not Wikipedia, and some others...
Post a Comment