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