Wikipedia: Knowledge or Hype?
by Mark Phillips - September 13th, 2006The Wall Street Journal has a tense interview between the founder of Wikipedia and the editor the Encyclopedia Britannica. Raises tons of interesting questions. The biggest one is whether the Wikipedia approach offers readers a source of knowledge? Or is it, in Stephen Colbert’s term, a source of truthiness? Feels true, we’d like it to be true. But it isn’t.
For those who don’t know how Wikipedia works, it goes like this. Someone decides that there should be an entry on a particular topic, say project management software. Or, they decide there should be an entry on a particular piece of software. The author searches around and sees that other vendors of project management software have entries on their products, so why not this particular software.
They go ahead and write that entry and post it. Suddenly, this particular software is part of the universal body of knowledge available to everyone. (And it also benefits from having a great link-source for search engine rankings.)
The post may then be visited by other people interested in the subject or it could be totally ignored. Or, it could be stumbled upon by someone who decides it doesn’t fit with “Wikipedia standards.” They may decide it is an advertisement and not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia body of knowledge. This self-appointed editor then goes to work on the article.
Unbeknownst to the author or to the world at large, the self-appointed editor begins an opaque process to remove the article and any mention of it throughout Wikipedia. Like in the Soviet Union, the article, the software and the company are quietly erased. They no longer exist.
What remains in Wikipedia are articles which the self-appointed editor crowd decides are relevant. Articles and entities which fit into their world-view or their self-interest. At the end of the day, Wikipedia reflects the interests and views of a large, community clique.
In contrast, Britannica draws on 4,000 scholars - Noble Prize winning, expert in their field type people. Academia, while far from perfect (and in many ways, another, albeit larger clique), is, at least, a recognized tradition of knowledge seeking, debate and fact finding. The goals of academia are to advance the cause and body of knowledge.
While it may be counter to truthiness, academia is where the human race has drawn its truths. I’m not talking here about moral truths. I’m talking empirical, mechanical or historical truths. The same can’t be said of the clique of people who somehow get into the editorial club at Wikipedia.
Further, the editors of Britannica (and other traditional encyclopedias) see themselves as keepers of the academic tradition and disseminators of knowledge. Unlike Wikipedia, they are not out to “make a point.”
When Diderot and the other encyclopedist set out to organize and publish the entire body of human knowledge, the goal was the educate as many people as possible. To share the fruits of lifetimes of research with the “masses”, to make the repositories of knowledge more accessible.
Wikipedia’s goal seems to be to have as many people as possible decide what the body of human knowledge should be. Its spin and hype a public bulletin board, rather than knowledge. Like another mass movement of Diderot’s days, the French revolution, this too will be disruptive and dangerous. And perhaps most upsetting, a distraction to education and knowledge.
Tag:Bookmark this post:
September 13th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Thats quite a dramatization of how wikipedia works.
The self-appointed editor crowd do not decide what is relevant. Instead, they decide whether an article is a spoof or factual. The world wide Wikipedia community decides what is relevant, what affects them, what is important to them and what is useful to them. Editors just does the editors job. Checking against misuse by greedy advertisers is just one of them. Editors and Community of wikipedia are doing what they are doing because of their passion about the subject. Obviously many of them write about what they know best.
If some one thinks 4000 ‘paid’ scholars know a lot more than those 10s of thousands of passionate editors and community, so be it. But, I believe, many of us are Experts in some thing. But don’t like to be one of those 4000 at Britannica to be full time ‘authors’ of world wide knowledge. But spend a little time to share our expertise on Wikipedia.
Britannica might be a better choice if one want to dwell in the past. But definitely, I get a lot more latest and relevant information from wikipedia than Britannica. Take any contemporary topic, and compare. Handsdown.
Finally, there are millions of blogs each talk about some thing they know better. There is a reason many more millions read them. Embrace them. There may be more accurate and factual magazines, research, and volumes of books on those subjects. But every body love to read it on blog. They are free. They are up to the minute. They have the contemporary coverage. More over, they talk our mind. Wikipedia exemplfies that spirit that each one of us have some thing special. We are experts in some things. So let us share it to the world. Its confusing and amusing to agree that The whole world of knowledge is decided by some 4000 paid authors against passionate millions.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Hi Murali,
Thanks for the comment. You pointed out some significant differences between the two models, Wikipedia and Britannica. These explain a lot of the appeal of one versus the other.
1) The content and substance of the entries of Wikipedia is decided by a world wide community of readers and editors. This is a paradigm change from a traditional approach to knowledge. It may be true that there are tens of thousands of people who are interested in a subject, know about the subject and have opinions on it. But when someone is looking for information, they may not be interested in the popular or most recent answer. They want something definitive and conclusive -even if its not the most up to date.
If someone wants the most up to date information, they should visit a news site, not an encyclopedia.
2) Many people have said they prefer Wikipedia because it is more up to date. Up to date is not a necessary component of knowledge -it might be critical for the process of determining knowledge, discovery and research. But it is not worth trading off accuracy for latest-greatest. Its ok for there to be open questions and uncertainty. We don’t know everything (nor will we). Speculation belongs in the realm of scientific inquiry and the methodology of discovery.
3) Collaboration can be a powerful tool for research and for those people on the Internet who participate in the collaborative of Wikipedia, its a lot of fun. Who doesn’t want to feel that their passions matter? But for people who are looking up a quick fact or to learn about something for the first time, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia can be misleading.
Since there is no lock-down on the knowledge and since it is ever morphing, one needs to approach a Wikipedia entry with a grain of salt. People who aren’t part of the community don’t know that (there’s no disclaimer on Wikipedia to that effect).
Maybe we’re just talking two different worlds, here.
There is one world, online, where people want to be part of the process of growing knowledge, of being heard and sharing. Knowledge in a particular area, for them, is something maleable and something they use to identify themselves with a community.
Then there is another world, offline, where people just want the facts, as they are. Doesn’t have to be latest greatest. Doesn’t have to be with a grain of salt. Something straightforward they can learn and then get on with their lives. Knowledge in that particular area, for them, is something they want to find out about, but not something they want to give too much committment to.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
How to Create Effective Web Publishing Content…
I frequently tell my coaching clients about the importance of regularly updating web site content. Fresh content keeps customers coming back and gets indexed more frequently by search engines. Novelty spurs attention, whether human or technological. A …
May 6th, 2008 at 1:42 am
[…] Gpod wrote an interesting post today on Vertabase Blog » Print » Wikipedia: Knowledge or Hype?Here’s a quick excerpt … between the founder of [3] Wikipedia and the editor the [4] Encyclopedia Britannica … URL to article: http://www.vertabase.com/blog/wikipedia-knowledge-or-hype/ […]