Wikipedia

Wikipedia

Both high schools and colleges assign countless writing assignments every day. Anything from short essays to in-depth, massive research papers are expected of students across the nation. For these writing assignments, it is more than common for the instructor or professor to ask the students to find a specified number of reference articles. This is usually around the time when students (I know this from personal experience) begin to groan and complain about the grueling task at hand. This result is mostly triggered by the phrase “You can NOT use Wikipedia as a credible source!” Students across the nation join together in the argument that Wikipdia can be a powerful research tool. Although Wikipedia can produce some shaky (ok, downright ridiculous) information, I am a firm believer that if used correctly, Wikipedia can definitely be a credible resource outlet.

According to the New Media Journal, Wikipedia has been quite the success story becoming one of the web’s top ten most visited web sites. Although it is obviously booming in popularity, this journal still sees its flaws. Ganaele Langlois and Greg Elmer write, “Because it relies on a collaborative process to produce knowledge rather than the credentials of experts, the Wikipedia model puts into question traditional processes for legitimizing truth claims, such as relying on expert knowledge rather than the wisdom of the crowd.” (Langlois and Elmer, 2009) This statement refers to an article by Cross, T. written in 2006. Langlois and Elmer are validating that Wikipedia takes a risk by relying on the knowledge rather than the proof of the knowledge. This risk usually pays off as a success, yet when subject to vandalism, the information can be misleading.

Wikiedia itself is aware of its lack of credibility, and is attempting to make revisions in order to establish itself as more reliable. According to CNN’s technology portion of their website, Wikipedia is initiating a new rule of editing in which an “experienced volunteer” will be assigned as an editor to an article in their particular field of expertise. This has started a heated online debate arguing whether or not this is destroying the basic ideas that the web based encyclopedia was built around. Caterina Fake, the founder of the photo-sharing website Flickr, has this to say on the change, “If you really want to participate in Wikipedia, it is open to you so long as your contributions are benefiting the community and everybody kind of collectively decides that your contributions are good.“ (Sutter, John D., CNN.com)

When I searched for a Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia, I found some interesting self-reflecting information. “Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic contents have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook. Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.” (Wikipedia)

Langlois, G. and Elmer, G. “Wikipedia leeches? The Promotion of Traffic Through a Collaborative Web Format” New Media & Society

Canada: Ryerson University, 2009. 773-390

Sutter, John D. “Wikipedia: No longer the Wild West?”

CNN.com/technology Aug 26, 2009 <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/26/wikipedia.editors/>

Sep 8, 2009

Wikipedia

Wikipedia.org

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Cultural_significance>