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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment