How Reliable Is Wikipedia? Exploring the CBC'S "Talk" Page

As the conversation regarding whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source of information is an ongoing one, this post explores the way in which articles are discussed using the "talk" page on the site. The talk page is used by editors to discuss potential changes to an article, and provides much more insight into Wikipedia and how it is a space for collective sharing of knowledge and information.

Originally, I had wanted to explore the topic of "media bias" via the site, but felt that I should narrow my focus to an article that was less popular. This decision was influenced by the desire to more accurately discuss the correctness of all types of articles on the site -not just the ones that are heavily trafficked.

Royal and Kapila discussed the 2005 study which found a systematic bias whereby coverage on items that were current, important, or held country measured by country size or company wealth produced more hits than those that were not, and thus these items were covered more frequently on the Web.

While this is only one study, it can still only be assumed that because a topic is more popular, there would be more people editing it, and thus, more information available on that topic. Because of this, I decided to explore the article written on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, also known as the CBC.
Upon researching this topic, I had noted a number of interesting things which indicate the article to be a reliable source of information. First, there were a substantial amount of cited sources following the article. Many of these were government sources such as the Canadian Radio Television Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

 Among these were also many cited references to the CBC and their reports, as well as articles from other news sources including the Toronto Star. The information cited within official documents from both the Government of Canada as well as the CBC can be considered as valid and thus a legitimate source. While we can assume that the articles from the Toronto Star, Ottawa Sun, and Windsor Star contain information that is also true and valid, we can also assume, like any news source, that there is some biased information.

However, the large variety in regards to the type of sources used leads to what Nieborg and Van Dijk describe as ‘mass creativity’ or ‘peer production’. This type of collaboration between experts and enthusiasts leads the information on Wikipedia to be much more valid. Jim Giles notes that most entries are edited by enthusiasts, but the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely.

One fellow Blogger, Jessica Grasser, states that "there can be benefits to ‘crowd’ source knowledge by people with more insight on the topic at hand, where they have the ability to add some very important and helpful information, at no cost."

Because information can easily be edited by anyone, many people find issues with the collaborative knowledge-building process, due to things like illegitimate sources or false information. However, the collaboration of many individuals seems to work to provide reliable information. As Kevin Sjostrom notes in his blog, “collectivism is established through the use of a group of editors to come up with accurate articles.”

We have become part of a democratic shared-knowledge system, which is where we obtain most of our information. Hayley Neal comments on the way in which we can no longer “rely on a handful of people to teach us what we need to know.” Think of it this way: If an article entry within a hard-copy encyclopedia is being published, there are probably less than a handful of editors working to verify the information. With online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of editors who are able to instantly find and edit mistakes, and add or update information if changes need to be made.

By exploring the “Talk” page of the Wiki article on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it is clear to see the way in which this collectivism works to provide information that is accurate and true. Not only do people edit typos: for example, changing the name of the “SCRA Union” to its actual name “SCRC,” but there are also sections where people add information such as adding missing personalities from CBC television or the adding of citations for certain claims such as the CBC’s potential bias.

While many argue that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information due to the fact that information can be added and edited by anyone, the use of collective knowledge that forms the basis for the website actually leads me to believe the opposite.

As with the use of my example of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation article on Wikipedia, it is clear that information is continuously being edited and updated at the same time that new information is being added. The use of experts, journalists, statistics, and knowledge from enthusiasts of the CBC come together to create an article that is accurate and true. Thus, Wikipedia should be considered a reliable source for information.

Explore the CBC's "Talk" Page Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation

Articles Cited:

Giles, Jim. “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.” Nature. 438 (2005): 900-01. Web. 21 May. 2013.

Royal, Cindy, and Deepina Kapila. “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information.” Social Science Computer Review. 27.1 (2009): 138-148. Web. 21 May. 2013.

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

Blogs Cited:

Jessica Grasser

Kevin Sjostrom

Hayley Neal


 

Re: Democracy or Anarchy? Reassessing Wikipedia and the Validity of Information

Much of the discussion around Wikipedia involves two sides of the same coin. As a majority of us admit to using Wikipedia in order to seek out information, we all can recognize many of the positive and negative aspects to using the site.

On one hand, Wikipedia is an excellent tool that is easily accessible. I often use my cell phone in order to search terms, events, or find information on people through the web site. I find that this is an enormously useful aspect to the site, as information is able to be retrieved from anywhere in a matter of seconds, at any date or time.

Another positive point that users have commented on is the way in which Wikipedia helps to contribute to a more democratic public sphere where people are able to add their own knowledge on topics that they may be considered “experts” or “enthusiasts” of, even if they do not necessarily have a professional title that is in relation to the subject.

As mentioned in the initial module, rather than having a top down informational model, there is a large flow of information between the producers and consumers of content. In fact, the boundaries between the producer and consumer become rather blurred, as users are able to take in information simultaneously and just as easily as they project it.

While this may seem to take away from the legitimacy of information, it actually works to do the opposite. The notion behind the website is that people will work to provide information that is accurate and true. Since there are so many users who edit articles, there is less of a chance that information will be false, for fear of being scrutinized by a large community of Wiki experts and editors. (This is where the idea of the information watchdog comes into play).

The more negative aspects of Wikipedia involve the ease of access to information and how anyone can edit articles. Due to this fault, people must be aware of the way in which facts can easily be altered. In many of the comments, individuals have talked about the possibility of false information and the way in which it could cause negative outcomes for individuals.

Obviously there are many potential risks to using Wikipedia for retrieving information and individuals should be hesitant when using the site for research. However, as Wikipedia continues to monitor the site more and more frequently, the accuracy of information will continue to strengthen.

I personally think that it will be interesting to see if Wikipedia will ever reach the same standard of legitimacy of an encyclopedia website, such as Britannica or Open Site, and thus be allowed by educational institutions to be utilized as a scholarly source. Until that day comes, any information retrieved from the website should be taken with a grain of salt, or further researched via cited sources.

Thank you for your comments!

Democracy or Anarchy?: Assessing Wikipedia and the Validity of Information

While Wikipedia has overtly been criticized for its credibility, I find that the site is a reliable source of information. While the argument that Wikipedia is not a high-quality source does have some validity based on the fact that anyone can edit documents, in recent years the site has been proven to provide a substantial amount of valid information.

One contradictory feature of Wikipedia is it’s immediacy of information. As soon as an event occurs, such as a natural disaster or death of a celebrity, users flock to the website to input the new information that is coming in. While this is useful in providing other users with immediate information, it also can be problematic when false or “speculative” information is placed on the site in a race to get information out to the public almost instantly. 

With my early usage of the site, I remember hearing stories about people who would change information as a joke or prank. One of my history teachers had recalled seeing a statement that said Hitler had died before World War 2, and that it hadn’t been changed for a number of weeks. Royal and Kapila note that the “anyone can edit” feature is “an invitation for troublemakers and vandals who make thousands of foolish changes to articles every hour.” (Royal & Kapila, 2009)

While these types of incidences still occur quite frequently, the monitoring of the website has increased substantially, and the adding of false information is detected almost instantly, concluding with the banning of the user who had edited such false information.

As this “anyone can add” feature does have its potential issues, it is also one of the larger appeals to the website. While these features and applications that support user-generated content become more prevalent, the World Wide Web will continue to grow closer to achieving this vision of becoming the repository of all human knowledge. (Royal & Kapila, 2009) This collective effort to build, update, and maintain documents creates a huge data base of information that is accessible to everyone at the click of a mouse.

In comparison to other sources such as a news site or a user-created website, Wikipedia holds a certain stigma that its content is less biased. This is because of the vast array of users who are constantly uploading and editing information, in comparison to a sole source. In this way, users become “information watchdogs” as they are constantly monitoring articles.

Van Dijck and Nieborg describe these Wiki users as “people who define their own informational, expressive and communicational needs, a process touted as ‘mass creativity’ or ‘peer production’.” (Van Dijck & Nieborg, 2009). They argue that the features of such a web 2.0 site are changing the cultural discourse of information.

Rather than receiving information from a hierarchal top-down position as with documents in the past, we become the producers of content. In this sense, Wikipedia does contribute to a more democratic sphere. However, with the need for validity of information, such content will always be obliged to have a reputable source behind its statements.

Returning to Balancing The Public and Private: A Blurring of Boundaries

 
It is interesting to see the ways in which others not only monitor their personal information online, but also how these individuals may use privacy settings to formulate their online identity. Facebook and Twitter appear to be the most popular websites in regards to the both the creation of profiles and the exploitation of social networking.

However, each of these sites utilizes completely different settings for privacy. As mentioned in your comments, Twitter gives you the option to have your profile on private, so that other users are not able to follow you, see your information, or read your tweets without your permission. While there are still aspects of privacy by "protecting" your tweets, there seems to be a general consensus that Twitter is "less invasive" compared to Facebook, because individuals are not giving out as much personal information on their profiles, or posting extensive amounts of other information (mainly due to the 140 character limit).

Facebook on the other hand, makes use of a variety of privacy settings. This is most likely due to the fact that the site prompts you to give out more personal information in comparison to Twitter. With Facebook you are able to customize your privacy settings for different levels of interaction. For example, if I do not want complete strangers contacting me (i.e., people who are not “friends of friends”), I am able to disallow them from searching my profile by name.

As well, I am able to filter specific posts or information to specific groups of people. For example, if there is a certain photo or status that I want to post only for my group of “close friends” I am able to only allow this specific group viewing privileges, while such posts would remain as nonexistent to other Facebook contacts.

It is interesting to note the way in which these types of privacy settings may allow “sub personalities” to develop. If you are filtering specific information to specific groups of people, then you are actively selecting and building an image of how you would like others to view you.

This creation of one’s online image goes beyond these privacy settings set up by such sites as Twitter and Facebook, and into the hands of the individual. While everything is posted in real time, users are still able to retract tweets or posts from being seen. I personally delete tweets almost instantly after I tweet them if I spot a spelling or grammatical error. With Facebook, people are able to untag or “hide” photos from their profile if they deem them to be unflattering.

Thus, it is becoming more and more clear the way in which individuals who use these popular social networking sites are constantly building and monitoring their online identity.

Thank you to those who commented!


 

Balancing the Public and Private: A Blurring of Boundaries

Sherry Turkle, Psychologist and author of “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each other,” commented on the state of our existence as being individuals within the information society. “I share, therefore I am” denotes the fact that in today’s society, without an online presence you do not exist. If you are not sharing your information: your interests, skills, hometown, phone number, photos, likes, etc., with the online community, your existence deems to be invalid. However, with the amount of privacy concerns regarding online surveillance, how much sharing is too much sharing?

A majority of us utilize multiple Social Networking sites for different things. For example, I use Facebook to stay up to date with friends, view photos, and join groups or events. On Linkedin, I use this website to post my resume and keep in contact with potential employers. On each of these sites, my identity is completely different as I choose to share distinct information with the users of each of the various sites.

Turkle explains this as the way in which people “negotiate the virtual and the "real" as they represent themselves on computer screens linked through the Internet.” Such experiences “challenge what they have traditionally called "identity," which they are moved to recast in terms of multiple windows and parallel lives.” (Turkle, 1999) Through our use of multiple Social Networking sites, we draw on distinct parts of our identity in order to portray different sides of ourselves.

Boyd and Ellison suggest that ‘‘public displays of connection serve as important identity signals that help people navigate the networked social world, in that an extended network may serve to validate identity information presented in profiles. While most sites encourage users to construct accurate representations of themselves, participants do this to varying degrees.” (Boyd& Ellison, 2008)

With my personal use of Social Networking sites, I may post such items as my political views, comments on recent popular events, or post a photograph of my friends and I onto Facebook. My profile has information such as my hometown, date of birth, current city, and “likes”. However, while this type of profile has the least amount of filtering in regards to what I post, I still do not include other contact information such as my phone number, e-mail, or mailing address.

In comparison to my more “professional” use of Social Networking sites, my LinkedIn account is actually less filtered in regards to the amount of contact information I have. Posted within the resume section is information such as my name, phone number, address and current employer. In a sense I feel more “safe” posting this information through this website, because I am dealing more with potential employers and business contacts.

However, my LinkedIn account is more filtered in regards to the things I “post” regarding my interests. For example, I would not post my political views, or make humorous comments on recent events as I would with Facebook because employers may judge these things as being unprofessional. Thus, there is a divide between the more “personal me” via Facebook, and the “professional me” via LinkedIn.

While I filter specific information for specific sites, I am not overtly concerned with privacy issues. At a time, I was highly concerned with my privacy and what kind of information was being viewed online. Up until a few months ago I had hidden much of my information from my Facebook friends, including my tagged photos, age, birth date, location, and posts. As well, people that were not friends with me were unable to search my profile by name and could only send me friend requests if we had mutual friends.

Restricting my information made me feel in a sense “safe” as my information was hidden from my Facebook profile. However, I had realized that I was not being put under surveillance by my “friends” or contacts, but rather by Social Networking sites as a whole. For example, Facebook tracks a multitude of personal information such as products or companies which you “like”, the places you have checked in to, or even private messages between friends. While this information is unsettling, I find that it is a small sacrifice in order to stay connected.

As we currently reside in the information age where without an online presence you do not truly "exist," it is near impossible to avoid these sites completely. As privacy concerns continue to grow, it is important to be aware of exactly what information you are giving out to these types of sites and to monitor your online presence regularly. George Orwell's fears depicted in 1984 have never stood more true than they do in this day and age, so the next time you go to post something on Facebook, think of who could be watching.

References:Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 210–230, October 2007

Turkle, S. Cyberspace and Identity. Contemporary Sociology Vol. 28, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp. 643-648

Sherry Turkle. The Flight From Conversation. New York Times Sunday Review. April 21, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html?pagewanted=all



Huffington Post article on Facebook's sharing of information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/28/facebook-home-addresses-phone-numbers_n_829459.html

Hello. My name is Kelsey Archibald and I am entering fourth year in the Media Communications program at Brock University. As someone who is highly interested in advertising and the role that corporations play in the media, this blog provides me with the opportunity to explore issues within private and public broadcasting.

In a world dominated by commercialism, it is interesting to explore the way in which news stories portrayed by corporate-owned television broadcast companies may present skewed views and misinformation in comparison to the stories portrayed by public broadcasting companies.

In particular, this blog will focus on the differences in the portrayal of television news stories between privately owned broadcast companies in Canada including CTV, and Global, and publically owned broadcast companies including the CBC, as well as local news channels such as Southern Ontario's CHCH.  

This topic is of great importance to me as a Communications student. Not only is it our divine right to be treated as individuals rather than consumers, but public broadcasting acts as a way to promote a well-informed and more democratic population. With the most recent government funding cuts to our country’s leading public broadcaster, the CBC, it is clear that action must be taken in order to preserve these types of broadcasters and to ensure that our media is not overrun by corporate owned news channels.

Below, you will find a list of websites which will direct you to each of the television network's news pages, which will provide you with information on each of the stations and their mandates. Further, by examining the difference between the types of news that is displayed, the way in which these stories are portrayed, and even the look and feel of each of the sites (including advertising, layout, etc.) you may be able to note certain distinctions between the privately and publically owned broadcasting corporations.

I have also provided a couple of articles which contain more information on media bias and the effect of corporations on the media we consume.

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/

CHCH: http://www.chch.com/index.php

CTV: http://www.ctvnews.ca/

GLOBAL: http://globalnews.ca/

What is Media Bias & where does it come from?: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-media-bias-and-where-does-it-come-from.htm#did-you-know

The Public/Private Tension in Broadcasting: The Canadian Experience with Convergence: http://ripeat.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Vipond.pdf

As well, I have provided several twitter hash tags which will allow you to further explore similar issues on media bias, as well as issues regarding private and publically owned television broadcasting companies.

Follow @uncoveringnews for more information.

#publicbroadcasting

#corporatenews

#televisionnews

#newstruth

#canadiannews

#mediabias