(Image by Wilcox of Sydney Morning Herald)
Wikipedia…the high school student’s savior and the academic’s worst nightmare. Today’s encyclopedia has taken the shape of a free, “everyone’s-an-expert” group project. Developed by options trader Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia presents an easy, accessible interface that allows anyone with a mouse and free time to post, edit, and delete publicly shared encyclopedia articles. You want an article on the remote Romanian compound of Balaci, or the 18th century Polish nobleman Franciszek Grocholski? Both are just a Wiki-click away. However, say you are in need of a concrete, unbiased overview of the history of Islam? This is where things get tricky. Who’s to say the writers of these articles are truthful, factual, or complete? I could write “I HATE CATS” on fifty pages in less than a minute if I wanted to. Political parties can sabotage or mislead opponent’s pages. This conflict is the basis of Daniel H. Pink’s article “The Book Stops Here.” Is Wikipedia a romantic free-knowledge movement in which everyone has some area of ‘expertise’ to contribute? Or is it the literary equivalent of a “public bathroom,” as described by an Encyclopedia Britannica executive in Pink’s article because “who knows who used it last?”
I myself have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. It is perfect for a quick, mindless answer to some relatively unimportant question, or as a bridge to links and forums for further information. However, if I was betting my house (or my college term paper!) on my answers, I wouldn’t consult Wikipedia. As a future teacher, I cringe at the fact that young children take Wikipedia’s sometimes misinformed or biased information as factual. So what’s to do? Once something like Wikipedia has been unleashed, it can’t be stuffed back in the bag. I believe the only solution is the one proposed in Pink’s article: a forked Wiki-system of one unalterable, proven set of information, and one set of cutting-edge, up-for-grabs articles. Perhaps articles could be submitted for some sort of e-stamp of approval. While Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place, its format could use some editing.
I myself have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. It is perfect for a quick, mindless answer to some relatively unimportant question, or as a bridge to links and forums for further information. However, if I was betting my house (or my college term paper!) on my answers, I wouldn’t consult Wikipedia. As a future teacher, I cringe at the fact that young children take Wikipedia’s sometimes misinformed or biased information as factual. So what’s to do? Once something like Wikipedia has been unleashed, it can’t be stuffed back in the bag. I believe the only solution is the one proposed in Pink’s article: a forked Wiki-system of one unalterable, proven set of information, and one set of cutting-edge, up-for-grabs articles. Perhaps articles could be submitted for some sort of e-stamp of approval. While Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place, its format could use some editing.
1 comment:
I agree with what you have to say about Wikipedia. It is hard to trust what is written since anyone can post facts on there. I am also going to be a teacher and it is frustrated to know that children are getting information from this site and thinking that it is true. It would be smart to have an "e-stamp of approval." This way people would be able to trust the information posted on the site.
Post a Comment