Introduction of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is fast becoming one of the most frequented sites in modern-day Internet usage. Wikipedia, as defined by Lih (2004) is “an Internet-based, user contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited, and utilizes the wiki concept – the idea that any user on the Internet can change any page within the Web site, even anonymously”. Lih outlines the irony seen in Wikipedia’s unstructured existence as it has become one of the most highly utilized reference points.
Bauwens (in Bruns, 2008) explores the incentive for Internet users to become involved in proactive input and contribution towards an open content area arguing that financial gain rarely justifies a reason for participation. The “increase in use value, their [the participant’s] own learning and reputation” (Bauwens in Bruns, 2008) are the most commonly cited reasons for providing input.
Wikipedia is fast becoming one of the most frequented sites in modern-day Internet usage. Wikipedia, as defined by Lih (2004) is “an Internet-based, user contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited, and utilizes the wiki concept – the idea that any user on the Internet can change any page within the Web site, even anonymously”. Lih outlines the irony seen in Wikipedia’s unstructured existence as it has become one of the most highly utilized reference points.
Bauwens (in Bruns, 2008) explores the incentive for Internet users to become involved in proactive input and contribution towards an open content area arguing that financial gain rarely justifies a reason for participation. The “increase in use value, their [the participant’s] own learning and reputation” (Bauwens in Bruns, 2008) are the most commonly cited reasons for providing input.
Is Wikipedia worth it?
The topic of concern for academics is the reliability of the resource and the ability to ascertain unmodified, accurate material from the site with an average of 11.3 modifications made to each posted article (Lih, 2004). The open content wiki site, created by Jimmy Wales, saw the posting of over 210,000 English articles during a three year period – 2001 to 2004 (Lih, 2004) and now hosts more than 750,000 English posts (Winkler, 2005). Most interestingly, is the opposite approach differing faculties take on the acceptability of this resource.
The lack in accuracy of information and the ease of use for unqualified users begs the question, is Wikipedia a worthwhile source. Lih (2004) notes the websites counter-intuitive nature which is fueled by the technical lack of control when filtering quality information from uninformed opinion. In a world so reliant on digital learning, resources that make available ineffective and imprecise information, hinder the process of gaining readily accessible, accurate information. Winkler (2005) argues that Wikipedia is nothing more than an insulting attempt at replication a traditional scholarly reference with anonymous authors being granted the freedom to mock genuine referees and academic individuals.
Lih (2004) notes the admission of doubt from Wikipedia organizers of the vast array of uneven quality within documents. It is professions such as these that fuel the debate that Wikipedia be disregarded as a credible resource. The way in which Wikipedia is utilized in high school and tertiary education programs is highly controversial. Without the lack of academic reference point, it is not plausible that Wikipedia be accepted as a credible point of information. Undoubtedly Wikipedia hosts a range of the most useful and intelligent data digitally available: the problem rests in filtering from fact to the fiction.
Winkler (2004) argues that dismissing Wikipedia as an online reference point completely is not advised however in order for the site to gain credible recognition and an academic reputation, gateway control must be enforced in order to avoid malicious destruction of articles and ill-informed opinions circulating the site. If measures such as these were carried out, Wikipedia may have the potential to become an extremely reputable academic source.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, Axel, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from Queensland University of Technology Course Materials Database https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd/KCB201/KCB201_BK_163481.pdf.
Google Images. 2008. http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/rgn_wikipedia_wideweb__470x458,2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/pms-staff-edited-wikipedia/2007/08/23/1187462443308.html&h=458&w=470&sz=62&hl=en&start=12&tbnid=VV_XiWk82fAzGM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwikipedia%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den. Accessed April 27, 2008.
Lih, A. 2004. Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources?
Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource.
5th International Symposium on Online Journalism.
http://staff.washington.edu/clifford/teaching/readingfiles/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2008.
Winkler, C.A. 2005. Are Wikis worth the time? Collection of online information, such as Wikipedia, hold promise and peril for young researchers. http://myeport.com/published/t/uc/tucson73/collection/1/12/upload.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2008.
1 comment:
I found this an interesting and well argued blog. You have used good academic language, have supported your work with a variety of sources and it is generally free of errors. I would suggest adding a few more hyperlinks to your blog in the future to simply strengthen and support your views.
However from my point of view, you have only argued one side of the debate, the against Wikipedia view. While you have stated that in the future you believe it could become a reputable source, you have not mentioned its current benefits.
With regards to accuracy, a recent BBC News study found that the content found in Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (BBC News, 2005)
Your discussion also fails to examine the participatory culture and collective intelligence that Wikipedia helps to foster. As LeeLefever (2003) concludes, these interactions have the capability to create lasting and productive relations where none existed previously. Have a read of my user-created content blog for more information.
From a personal point of view, I think both sides of the debate have merit. While Wikipedia's accuracy can be drawn into question, there are still the major benefits such as its fostering of collective intelligence which can not be ignored.
Perhaps these issues I have raised briefly could be explored in greater detail in a future blog of yours, showing the other side of the argument.
References:
BBC News, 2005. Wikipedia Survives Research Test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm (accessed May 14, 2008)
Lefever, L. 2003, What is an Online Community? http://www.commoncraft.com/archives/000208.html (accessed May 13, 2008)
Post a Comment