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.
I like how you commented on "information watchdog" and it benefits a site such as Wikipedia as anyone can edit information. It has also allowed the site to become more credible as some people that have found false comments can easily fix them. It is good to realize the benefits as well as the potential issues behind the page, and I feel that everyone should be aware of the way Wikipedia functions before using it. With no prior knowledge about the site, people could use the information as factual evidence and it could be a great downfall for them. Something to add would be about how people can easily access Wikipedia on their phones, through apps and many other ways and it is one of the leading sites for quick information. People need to realize in what capacity to use the site and for what purposes.
ReplyDeleteI like your title because it really reveals that two features of Wikipedia. As democracy, Wikipedia allows anyone can edit and change information when they are interested in. This way is giving more free of speech and discussion by people. And it has no hierarchy of knowledge backgrounds, everyone can have right to add or say their views about issues what they want. While, I still have not enough confidence for Wikipedia because I think this way has some potential drawbacks for people. I think there are mess and variable information which are easy to distort and mislead the public when some of information are totally wrong. Honestly, many people still believed Wikipedia is a trustful website which can solve their confused issues because it almost covers all topics and is easy and quickly to search information by them. Thus, I think Wikipedia should have a huge responsibility when they use this way to collect all information.
ReplyDelete