The first part of the book ended with a strong statement: Like it or not, in the future you will be using Wikipedia (pg. 113). The second half of the book didn't fail to expand on that and even managed to capture my 21st century ADD-impaired mind for the whole time.
We love Wikipedia. Those who are part of the Wikipedia love it because it is a virtual world in which these individuals can come together to write, discuss, critique, and contribute (pg. 120). Some even adore the very immature possibilities, such as vandalism that can lead to fame (in a negative sense, of course). Others love it for the vast amount of information that at most times is unique to Wikipedia alone. Of course, it would be unfair to say that EVERYONE loves Wikipedia. After all, every great invention in the world had oppositions.
The most interesting part for me was the pages and pages of discussion for each article as well as the media coverage of anything Wikipedia-related. Both indicate how Wikipedia-centralised we have become in the past few years.
Editing wars frequently occured over controversial articles (which are the one where neutrality is hardest to be reached), breaking news (that no secondary source has confirmed), and blatant and stubborn vandalism. Besides the text that Wikipedia users can see upfront, the background to it is the more interesting part. Various editors come together to argue one point another, justify additions/removals, come up with a consensus on what should be said, and generally have a (relatively) intelligent conversation to provide the internet community with the best article possible. Rather than blindly reading what's presented to us, I think it would be interesting to explore a certain article to see the progression from the very beginning. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, mistakes, and any confusions that we may have might have come up in the discussion and reading that may help us understand a subject better.
Although people agree that Wikipedia is unreliable in certain cases because anyone is allowed to edit an article (unless they are blocked or banned), it was clearly demonstrated how dependent people were on it. Everyone from students to journalists have used Wikipedia and in some cases, have used incorrect information because they failed to validate it using other sources, which should have been done, especially in mass media! For example, in the article AC Omonia, the insertion about "The Zany Ones" was completely false, but that didn't stop Daily Mirror from using that information (pg. 178). Ironically, that same article was used to reinsert the false information later on (pg. 179). That really stumped me. How do you know some information didn't originate from some mischievious person writing on Wikipedia like this situation?
Above all, the very final part of the book showed how important Wikipedia has become. After David Rohde was kidnapped, his page was carefully policed by his collegue, Jimmy Wales, and various admins of the site, just in case the kidnappers or those affiliated with them happened to stumble upon Rohde's page (pg. 223). Even the thought that this was possible shows how monstrous Wikipedia has become and it shows no signs of declining.
From the exploration of Wikipedia through this book, I realized that it is actually more reliable than I thought it to be. There are avid editors who will do anything and everything to make sure their pages stay accurate and up to date. Vandalism and mistakes are usually reverted/corrected within a few minutes (most of the time). The people contributing to the cause are not dumb; in fact, they are far from it. Wikipedia may not consist of only professionals with Ph.Ds but it is definitely good enough to "rule the world of knowledge."
No comments:
Post a Comment