Wikipedia is a valuable source of information and could be used for a primary source of information in the future.
Wikipedia has brought with it much controversy since its birth. Contentious as the subject may be there is much concern about the chaotic mess and digital dystopian nature that it survives in. Many academics have focused merely on the negative characteristics of Wikipedia and believe that it is an unreliable source of information because anyone can edit entries. This essay discusses the positive aspects of this open source system and the potential that Wikipedia holds for future knowledge; and why it is not as substandard as it is perceived as.
Many academics do not consider Wikipedia an appropriate source for information. Wikipedia (2008) explains that ‘as with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error.’ On the other hand, this can be arguably true for paper-type ‘academic references’ that are compiled by numerous qualified researchers. Gibbons et al. (1994 as cited in Black 2008) suggests that knowledge is not generated only in university settings but also that it has a variety of settings, including government venues and other types of industries. In a study by Forte and Bruckman (2005) they found that Wikipedia contributors generally begin as seekers of information, but gradually adopt the practices of proofreading, fact checking, and eventually of authoring new content just as qualified researchers would, suggesting minute difference between the article quality of academics and ‘Wikipedians’. Wales, the president of Wikipedia Foundation, argues the fact that they do not ‘vet people on their credentials before they can contribute’ (Nature 2006; Giles 2005). Even the example of ‘judging a book by its cover’ would obviously be crude to an author.
Numerous articles in Wikipedia closely resemble those in traditional print encyclopaedias and are found to be factually accurate (Giles 2005; Emigh & Herring 2005). For example, articles on topics such as, algorithms, origins of the American Civil War and severe acute respiratory syndrome have emerged as reference-quality articles (Lih 2004). News publications also have cited Wikipedia on subjects such as crony capitalism, folk metal, British ‘honours’ system, Abdul Qadeer Khan and extinct animals. Most strikingly, in the US litigation a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court (The Smoking Gun 2003).
Any good researcher or academic would not just cite a source in Wikipedia, or any other encyclopaedia, without justifying it with further research. Valsino (2006 as cited in Assael et al. 2007) explains that 90% of today’s society search for information from multiple sources before they are able to trust certain information. He also finds that people turn to people like themselves rather than the traditional forms as a trusted source of information. This may be a reason why Wikipedia is able to work so well since it is written and ‘peer reviewed’ by people just like themselves (everyday people), not merely just academics. Harnad (1999 as cited in Black 2008) describes peer review as a ‘quality control’ which guarantees the accuracy of the large scale of knowledge being developed. One key component of Wikipedia’s review process is the ‘NPOV’ (neutral point of view), where other writers must have a mutual agreement to where an article stands (Wikipedia 2008). Though Wikipedia is open for abuse – that is, the notion that anyone can write anything – it is harder to vandalise an article than it is to contribute to it. Wikipedia tracks and stores every edited version of an article – thus, no edited article is permanently destructive (Lih 2004). This open source system also has the ability to mediate a conversation between differing points of view held by users to transform opaque information into a useful, reliable form in a very short period of time (Black 2008). Moreover, it is this irregular situation that urges users to be productive and cooperative members of the wiki community, allowing quality content to emerge (Lamb 2006).
Traditional encyclopaedias such as Encyclopaedia Britannica have typically been the norm when it comes to quality, reliable information. However, with long period publishing cycles and high cost lead to an opportunity for Wikipedia to arise. Wikipedia has changed the way people perceive knowledge, as it creates a ‘timely distillation of information and generation of commentary’ and a semantic related exploration of text (Emigh & Herring 2005). In contrast to publishing in the fundamental way, publishing in an open participatory environment encourages involvement from those who do not possess academic reputations. Along with this, scholars can increase their potential readership exponentially (Alexa 2007 as cited in Black 2008). An argument of Lih (2004) suggests the notion of rigor – more editing cycles on an article provides for a deeper treatment of the subject or more scrutiny of the content. He also proposes diversity – that is, with more editors, there are more voices and different points of view for a given subject, thus, enhancing quality.
A recent study found that Wikipedia, in terms of accuracy, is actually rival to that of Britannica Encyclopaedia (Giles 2005, Stvilia et al. 2005). Giles (2005) found that in scientific topics, an average Wikipedia article had about four ‘inaccuracies’ (factual errors, critical omissions, or misleading statements), compared with about three ‘inaccuracies’ per article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This supports other studies (Wilkinson & Huberman 2007; Anthony et al. 2005) that similarity in quality provides evidence that articles in Wikipedia are reliable and valid (Black 2008).
A rebuttable from Britannica claimed that Nature’s article was misleading and inaccurate. Conversely, they explain that Britannica is not error-free (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006). Assuming that no research is ever error-free, one could suggest that Wikipedia is a case of simply ‘larger error’ in comparison to other academic sources of information. Wikipedia is still a ‘young’ encyclopaedia when compared older versions, such as Britannica and many researchers seem to overlook this. Wikipedia is just like a child in life, it is deemed to make mistakes, but in time, corrected, shaped and fine tuned and hence always ‘under construction.’
To a normal person this perplexing phenomenon this open source system of information would just not make sense in the real world. Despite the digital dystopian nature that Wikipedia exists in, it has emerged as the largest online encyclopaedia. As Wikipedia grows more popular and widely recognized, Lih (2004) suggests that it will be vital to apply ‘quantitative metrics’ to what people currently informally perceive as the overall ‘quality’ of Wikipedia’s articles.
Nowadays, in a progressively more demanding work environment Wikipedia provides the opportunity to restructure research and semantically relate it to source documents. This essay discussed many positive aspects of Wikipedia and various studies showed remarkable accuracy and reliability of the open source database. With more fine-tuning and authority Wikipedia could be used widespread as a reliable source of information in the future. It is undeniably a developing organism and the only way to improve Wikipedia is to not criticize it, but embrace its potential of becoming a great online free resource of information.
References
Alexa 2007, ‘Traffic rankings’, www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=andurl=http://www.wikipedia.org.
Anthony, D, Smith, S & Williamson, T 2005, ‘Explaining quality in internet collective goods: zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia’, Fall 2005 Innovation and
Entrepreneurship Seminar, viewed May 7 2008, http://web.mit.edu/iandeseminar/Papers/Fall2005/anthony-pdf.
Assael, H, Pope, N, Brennan, L & Voges K 2007, Consumer Behaviour, 1st edn, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Milton.
Black, EW 2008, ‘Wikipedia and academic peer review: Wikipedia as a recognised medium for scholarly publication?’, Online Information Review, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 73 – 88, viewed May 6 2008, Emerald, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/.
Emigh, W & Herring, S 2005, ‘Collaborative authoring on the web: a genre analysis of online encyclopedias’, Proceedings of the Hawai'ian International Conference on System Sciences, viewed May 9 2008, http://csdl2.computer.org/.
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006, ‘Fatally flawed: refuting the recent study on encyclopaedic accuracy by the journal Nature’, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc, viewed May 5 2008, http://corporate.britannica.com/.
Forte, A & Bruckman, A 2006, From Wikipedia to the classroom: exploring online publication and learning’, Georgia Institute of Technology, viewed May 9 2008, http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/forte-bruckman-icls06.pdf
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P & Trow, M 1994, ‘Production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies’, Sage, London.
Giles, J 2005, ‘Internet encyclopaedias go head to head’, Nature, vol. 438, no. 7070, pp. 900–901, viewed May 7 2008, http://www.nature.com/.
Harnad, S 1999, ‘Free at last: the future of peer-reviewed journals’, D-Lib Magazine, vol. 5, no. 12.
Lamb, GM 2006, ‘Online Wikipedia is not Britannica - but it's close’, Christian Science Monitor, viewed May 10 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/.
Lih, A 2004, ‘Wikipedia as participatory journalism: reliable sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Online Journalism, viewed May 10 2008, http://staff.washington.edu/clifford/teaching/readingfiles/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf.
