Changing perspectives: Op Ed piece on the reliability of Wikipedia

Despite the popular belief that Wikipedia serves to be an unreliable source for accessing information, significant research has changed my opinion of Wikipedia considerably. Wikipedia is created using ‘crowdsourced’ knowledge, meaning various users and participants of the website come together through commentary and inquiries to produce knowledge through this long-debated resource. With a fundamentally collaborative nature, through research, I have discovered that that Wikipedia serves to be just as reliable as sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. A recent statement made by Nature (2005) noted that the errors in accuracy of information between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica differed by approximately 40 errors: within 42 randomly selected general science articles, 162 mistakes were noted in Wikipedia versus 123 for Britannica (Royal & Kapila, 2009).  As Hilimoniuk (2013) regards in her blog entitled kh2f00, this statistic allows participants of Wikipedia and readers of Encyclopaedia Britannica and other ‘reliable’ sources, such as myself, to question how different such resources truly are regarding accuracy and reliability. Royal and Kapila (2009) indicate that the errors in Britannica were omissions of information rather than accuracy; Encyclopaedia Britannica was missing important factual information altogether. Encyclopaedia Britannica is edited by trained and educated professionals, leaving it as a potential surprise that the difference in errors is so slight in comparison to Wikipedia, considering the vast difference in the origin and collection of information. I believe the collaborative nature and foundation of Wikipedia has proved to provide a reliable and mostly accurate source for Wikipedia users and participants to gather and store information. For example, one Wikipedia article noted by Jensen (2012) was worked on by 2400 people with 627 people writing 200, 000 words of commentary debating the text of just this one article (Jensen, 2012). This specific statistic, in combination with the comparison in statistics of errors between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica, greatly evidenced my new-found opinion that the wide knowledge base gathered from a variety of sources and users through mass collaboration across the Internet can provide just as accurate knowledge as that provided by ‘reliable’ encyclopaedia resources.  

            An article I researched within Wikipedia regarding ‘mental health’ exemplifies the reliable nature I have found within the collaborative framework that Wikipedia presents its information within. Various writers and users contributed and participated in the conversation regarding the article, expanding the resources from which the information is accessed from and determining what areas of the article require additional or different information and further refining, such as history or drug treatments of mental health.  I found this to directly relate to the theory of Royal and Kapila (2009) who follow the belief that Wikipedia is biased in that it produces knowledge that is only desired by the users of the media resource. With the various participants providing knowledge they deem to be important, a larger knowledge base can be established regarding the topic area as various users’ needs are met through the editing and re-editing of the article. Furthermore, as Jensen (2012) states, those working behind the scenes are consistently monitoring and editing articles to ensure they are accurate, appropriate and informative in relation to each specific topic area, reducing any bias that may be produced by participants.  Editors also ensure that all text is verifiable based on reliable secondary sources. As Eras (2013) notes in her blog entitled Youth Employment, Wikipedia editors also enforce the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) rule, which enforces that no opinions will be embodied within articles that are published on the Wikipedia website, further discouraging the incorporation of any bias within the articles of this ‘crowdsourced’ knowledge-based website. Overall, I recognized that this all-embracing editing process ensures that information is not presented in a biased matter, and all important areas of the topic area are covered and informed correctly by participants and workers of Wikipedia alike.

            Rather than presenting a disadvantage, I affirm that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia proves to be beneficial to the needs and participants of those using Wikipedia. The concept of mass creativity enables anonymous users to define their own informational, expressive and communication needs, allowing them to become ‘produsers’ of their own knowledge via the Internet, or Wikipedia (Van Dijk & Nieborg, 2009). Rather than advancing Royal and Kapila’s (2009) theory following that Wikipedia is biased, I follow that mass creativity allows users to determine their informational needs and provide knowledge that is relevant to what other users and participants deem to be necessary or important to the topic area. For example, while I was reviewing the article on ‘mental health’ on Wikipedia, through their comments, users discuss that they would like to see more information regarding the need to incorporate a historical context in regards to mental health and drug treatments that have potentially been used to treat mental illness, currently and in the past. For a resource such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is not as if readers can comment and inform the authors of what they precisely would like to know and read and, in return, receive a re-edited version of the Encyclopaedia containing the desired information. Wikipedia serves to be reliable in delivering what readers and participants want to know and allows users to comment and interact in order to access and discover the desired information to each specific topic area.  Many articles existing within Wikipedia are noted as ‘good’ articles which are recognized as being written very well, containing factual, accurate and verifiable information that presents broad coverage, is neutral in perspective and accompanied by suitable copyright licenses. Out of four million articles on Wikipedia, 15, 572 are considered ‘good’ articles, while 3, 619 have obtained top honours as ‘featured articles’ (Jensen, 2012). This is why I have altered my opinion of Wikipedia from believing it is unreliable to observing that it generally has more detail, citations and reliability; for example, thirteen drafts were produced while editing and ensuring accuracy in regards to the article on ‘the War of 1812’ on Wikipedia (Jensen, 2012).

As Bhangu (2013) notes in his blog entitled Thoughts & Such, despite the excellent ratings associated with Wikipedia and its’ articles, it is important to note that a mere 13 percent of Wikipedia users are actual creators, with the likelihood that new readers will edit and produce information sharply declining (Jensen, 2012). This calls for and challenges individuals to engage in more participation; University students are specifically encouraged as they are gaining education in an academically stimulating environment where knowledgeable conversation is consistently encouraged.  By endorsing users to become ‘produsers’ of knowledge through collaborative sources such as Wikipedia, individuals can expand their own knowledge base by absorbing what other users have contributed, while providing important information through an interactive context.

cc licensed Wikipedia photo retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica,_1993.jpg

References

Bhangu, K. (2013, May 23). To Wiki or not to Wiki. Thoughts & Such. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from http://kpreet92.wordpress.com/.

Eras, L. (2013, May 23). What's up with Wikipedia?. LEras. youth employment | Smile!You’re at an okay WordPress.com site. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from http://le09ox.wordpress.com/.


Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. 438, pp 900-901.

Hilimoniuk, K. (n.d.). Module 3: Main Blog Post . kh2f00. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://kh2f00.wordpress.com.

Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

Wikipedia vs. scholarly articles: are they both biased?

I really liked the comments that I received for this blogpost as they furthered and advanced my thinking even more regarding the topic of Wikipedia and whether or not this serves to be a reliable resource for academic research, and even general inquiries. Before reading the comments, I would have not thought of the comparable biased nature of research and scientists, who do, indeed, decide what exactly they research and how the research is carried out. This serves to be just as biased as the point raised by Royal and Kapila (2009) as topics that are interesting to the scientist and researcher are the ones that are going to be researched and reported on, while topics out of that area of interest are not given attention or appropriate research to expand the topic. As one comment raised, often null results are not reported in the research. In relation to this, I must also raise the point that most of the time, if the results obtained are not desired, the experiment is either completed again under different controls to attempt to obtain the desired results, or the research and experient is simply not published. This is biased very much in the same way as Royal and Kapila (2009) suggest that Wikipedia is biased in the topics in which participants choose to engage and provide knowledge on.
   Furthermore, I also agree with the comments regarding the need to be mindful when accessing information from Wikipedia as many participants can contribute to the knowledge base which is available from this Internet resource. However, it is almost important to note the significant points that Jensen (2012) raises regarding the monitoring of information through those behind the scenes at Wikipedia, who ensure that information is appropriate, accurate and informative regarding each specific topic area. For example, the article available on Wikipedia regarding the War of 1812 was worked on by 2400 people with 627 people writing 200, 000 words of commentary debating the text of this one article (Jensen, 2012). This shows the wide knowledge base that is provided regarding one specific topic on Wikipedia and shows the different and important knowledge that can be obtained through 'crowdsourced' knowledge. The method in which information is obtained for Wikipedia calls for the need for informed individuals to come together and share information via the Internet in order to become produsers. As Jensen (2012) notes, this calls for the encouragement of university students, such as ourselves, to step forward and participate by sharing the knowledge and information we have gained through our academics, education as well as personal experience.

Wikipedia: to trust, or not to trust?

Before reading the articles for this module, I did not believe that Wikipedia was a reliable and valid source, specifically for university-level assignments. Since high school, I have been discouraged from using Wikipedia as it is not credible due its' democratic nature in producing knowledge through peer-to-peer relations. Since essentially anyone can contribute to the knowledge produced through Wikipedia, I have always believed that the information produced on Wikipedia was not reliable. Following the readings for this module, I have a new appreciation for the knowledge that is produced through Wikipedia and the method in which this knowledge is produced.

            Wikipedia is an informational website with a social aspect as participants are able to add information, comment on the information and knowledge that is already been provided, and provide suggestions for how the accuracy and reliability of the information can be improved. As Duguid and Brown (1996) state, the new forms of documents that exist allow for new forms of community, or "social worlds". Wikipedia is an example of such a "social world" where participants gather to expand on Van Dijk and Nieborg's (2009) concept of mass creativity. Within mass creativity, anonymous users are able to define their own informational, expressive and communicational needs, expanding on the concept of "produsage" as we previously discussed.  Wikipedia allows for this through their 'talk' application, where readers and participants of the website are able to comment on the knowledge that is provided and how this knowledge can be made more reliable and accurate. Through users and participants contributing  knowledge, they are made to be produsers of the Internet, contributing information to the Internet, rather than passively absorbing it. By associating mass creativity with the difference in statistics of accuracy errors between Encyclopaedia Britanica and Wikipedia, my perspective of Wikipedia has greatly altered. As provided by Giles (2005), the difference in errors in accuracy of information between the two knowledge producers (one being produced by educated professionals, the other by online participants who can virtually be anyone) is a approximately a mere 40 errors. This statistic shows the potential benefit for encouraging consistent conversations about knowledge and sharing knowledge based on education and experience across various peoples.

            The obvious benefit to "crowdsourced" knowledge is that multiple individuals can contribute knowledge that may not otherwise be known due to location, cultural or educational differences. By allowing various individuals and groups to contribute knowledge, as well as provide feedback regarding knowledge already provided, the information provided can be specified to the needs of the participants and the knowledge they believe important to know. This exact concept can also be viewed as a disadvantage of "crowdsourced" knowledge. As Royal and Kapila (2009) discuss, Wikipedia can potentially be viewed as biased in that it reflects the knowledge and interests of those who choose to participate in the ongoing conversation regarding such knowledge. Certain topics are covered more comprehensively due to the interest and knowledge base of participants contributing to the conversation. Rather than reflecting a general knowledge base, the knowledge provided through websites such as Wikipedia is dependent on who is interested in the topic and how much knowledge they have in regards to this topic. Although the errors in accuracy are close between Encyclopaedia Britanica and Wikipedia, the difference in areas could easily be accounted for due to the participants who are providing information and their areas of interest. In regards to areas such as help forums, I believe ideas and concepts that arise from such forums should be take with a bit of apprehension as you do not know who is providing this information, their credentials, or if they are who they even say they are. As discussed in the previous module and exemplified through Sherry Turkle, it is quite easy for someone to create an anonymous identity Online that does not resemble their real identity in the least. For example, someone could go on a medical forum and begin giving advice in regards to stomach pains that someone is having, saying that they are a trained doctor. However, this person may actually just be a couch potato with no education at all who knows completely nothing about the medical field or stomach pains at all. This is why we must be apprehensive about the information we receive on the Internet and who we receive it from.

 Photo from: http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-3605597056

 

References:

 

Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.

Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. 438, pp 900-901.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.

 

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0

business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

Cyberbullying and the need to maintain privacy

Cyberbullying is an upcoming and prevailing issue made only possible by technological advancements and the cyberworld. As many of you discussed in your comments, cyberbullying is a serious issue existing among youth where the act of bullying is transferred to the Internet, where bullies can remain anonymous to their victims and hide behind their computer screens. Cyberbullying has been associated with many suicides among youth as through cases such as Amanda Todd and James Hubley, two teens who committed suicide on separate occassions due to bullying through the Internet and cyberworld. The Internet makes it a lot easier for bullies to hide and even say things they might not if they were to actually interact with the victim in real life. The Internet also makes it easier for others to see what kind of bullying issues are occurring where others can join in, making the victim feel even worse. I feel at times, there are youth who use the Internet and the cyberworld and do not realize the harsh consequences that these actions may have since there this interaction occurs electronically.
     Other comments regarding my privacy and surveillance blog post surrounded the lack of personal communication between youth and adolescents today since they have the ability to be alone, yet still be together at the same time. It is quite sad to me that some youth feel they cannot have a proper conversation with another human being in person as they cannot change or edit what they say. This is a serious upcoming issue for society, should it prevail, as we will have a generation of people who simply do not know how to properly interact with each other in a real life setting.  Tasks will be very difficult to complete and society will have a hard time functioning if people cannot properly interact with one another. Furthermore, the diagnoses of ADHD among youth and adolescents has sky-rocketed over the last few years, which leaves past generations questioning whether there is actually a rise, or if technology is intervening on youth`s ability to focus and concentrate as it serves to be a serious distraction. This issue may also lead to the phenomenon that many youth and adolescents feel awkward and unable to have a full and proper conversation in real life with another human being.
    Overall, I believe implementing knowledge and education for adults regarding the technology that youth and adolescents are using could have several benefits to maintaing privacy when interacting in the cyberworld. If adults, parents and other stakeholders understand the consequences the Internet may have for youth when they are interacting, at times anonymously, online. These consequences include the serious issue of cyberbullying as well as the detrimental loss of personal communication shared among many youth in today`s society. Moreover, if such stakeholders can understand the surveillance issues that accommdate the use of the Internt in today`s society, perhaps youth and adolescents can be more strictly monitored to protect their safety since it is possible that they do not understand the serious problems that may arise when privacy is not maintained. Many of today`s youth do not understand that posting a picture on somewhere such as Twitter or Facebook remains there indefinitely, even after it is deleted. These social networking website practically own these photos as soon as you post them as they are stored to their system and organization forever. It is such knowledge that must be passed on to adolecsents, youth, adults, parents and stakeholders in order to promote a full understanding of the detrimental effects that technology and the Internet may have for youth, specifically regarding privacy and surveillance.

Online identity vs. public identity and the relationship between the two

The term "cyberspace" is used to describe any technological ideas and phenomena including the internet, networking and digital communication. With cyberspace continually expanding, it is important to note the relationship that exists between the public and private, via online communications.
    Personally, I do not like to divulge too much information about my personal life online as I try not to provide too much insight to my personal life, relationships, or whereabouts as you never truly know who is accessing your information or who may be able to see it. I have a Twitter and Facebook page, but both I just use to keep in touch with friends. As Turkle (1999) states, information published on social networking sites is not only available to the people we believe it is accessible to, but organizations have access as well. I do not need or want my private information to be stored indefinitely on the Internet for anyone to know. This is why I choose not to share too much personal or private information on social networking  websites as I do not want it to be available to anyone possible on the Internet. Despite the opportunity to use advanced privacy settings with some social networking websites, such as Facebook where you can hide your profile from basically anyone, there are people out there who have the ability to hack into such privacy settings and still access your information. As Albrechtslund (2008) notes, geotagging is an online accessory used throughout various social networking sites which allow members and participants to share where they are exactly, and who they are with. This creates an almost creepy relationship between cyberspace and physical spaces. This presents a serious issue of safety as such an accessory can allow for anyone to know and go exactly where you are.
    Furthermore, the Internet and online communications subtracts the need for face-to-face communication and conversation, leaving many teens and adolescents in today's age unable to properly communicate or have a conversation without feeling anxious or panicked as they cannot edit or change what they are saying before it is said. As Sherry Turkle (2012) states, constant digital interaction impedes our capacity for self-reflection. It is when we stumble or hesitate with our words that we reveal ourselves to each other. When conversation is occurring online, such an aspect cannot exist as online participants can edit and change what they say before anything is said at all.
    Finally, I believe it is important to note the serious issue that is presented with the relative anonymity of life in cyberspace as one has the choice of being known only by one's chosen "handle" or online name (Turkle, 1999). This allows people online to be whoever they want, and act however they want, even if it is completely irrelevant from who they are and how they present themselves in real-life and conversation. I decided to use this aspect and relate it to my blog topic of mental health, where the issue of cyberbullying can have huge detrimental effects on one's mental health. The anonymous nature of cyberspace allows individuals to present themselves as they want to, which has greatly exacerbated the issue of bullying online (or cyberbullying). Individuals, and specifically youth and adolescents, are able to hide behind the computer screen to protect themselves while verbally harassing and hurting others. Cyberspace has allowed the issue of bullying to transition from a physical, emotional and verbal face-to-face interaction to online emotional and verbal abuse. Face-to-face interaction obviously involves knowing the perpetrator and victim, where as cyberspace can allow for the perpetrator to remain anonymous, leaving the victim to feel even more alone and as though no one may believe them. In order to combat such a serious issue, adults must be involved in their children's online interactions and must have a sound understanding of issues relating to cyberspace such as surveillance, privacy and anonymity.

References:
Albrechtslund, A. (2008) "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance." First Monday. 13,3

Cyberspace and Identity Sherry Turkle Contemporary Sociology Vol. 28, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp. 643-648
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.brocku.ca/stable/pdfplus/2655534.pdf?acceptTC=true

Places we don’t want to go: Sherry Turkle at TED2012
http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/01/places-we-dont-want-to-go-sherry-turkle-at-ted2012/


      

    

My first post

My name is Rebecca and I just finished my third year at Brock University. I am 20 years old and in the Concurrent Education program, specializing in Child and Youth studies. I have chosen the topic of mental health and youth for this blog for COMM  2F00 as I believe it is a very important issue that has increasingly begun to be acknowledged and should continue to be acknowledged through various facets. 1 in 5, approximately 500,000, children in Ontario struggle with a mental health problem. This statistic is one that can no longer continue to be ignored.

Mental health has been a topic I have greatly gained interest in as I have progressed through my university, volunteer and work experience. I worked at the Canadian Mental Health Association last summer and am doing so again this summer facilitating the youth after school program. I have also participated in the on-campus club called 'Active Minds' that raises awareness regarding mental health for youth and the stomping out the stigma associated with such mental health concerns. Too many youth are ashamed of how they feel and therefore do not reach out to receive the support or help they need and could acquire if they decided to speak up. Youth and adolescents must be supported and encouraged to speak up, rather than being fearful of being made fun of or that people will think they are 'crazy' or 'psycho'; it is stigma such as this that needs to be eliminated in order for children and youth to step forward when potentially struggling with mental health issues. My intent of this blog is to provide an educational and informative blog that appropriately informs people about mental health, the stigma associated with mental health, and how to handle such concerns.

Every child and adolescent should feel they have somewhere to go or someone to talk to. Mental health is as equally important as physical health, and the stigma that is attached to certain mental health concerns must be eliminated in order for others to develop a proper understanding and appreciation for those who struggle with mental health concerns and provide the help and support for such youth. This is a great time to begin this blog as this week is actually children's mental health week!

I hope you enjoy my blog! This is my first official blog using something like wordpress or blogger. It should be interesting but I am looking forward to it!

Here are some interesting links to other sources regarding mental health and youth:
Blogs
http://teenmentalhealth.org/blog/
http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/
http://beingtrulypresent.com/
http://curiouscuratio.blogspot.ca/
http://www.aliceboyes.com/blog/

Twitter hashtags
#mentalhealth
#cmha
#bellletstalk
#mentalhealthcanada
#mentalhealthweek (children's mental health week is actually this week!)

Websites
http://www.cmha.ca/mental-health/your-mental-health/youth/
http://www.teenmentalhealth.org/
http://mindyourmind.ca/
http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/
http://werkidsmentalhealth.ca/