Mar 30 2009
In Defense of Wikipedia
Hard on the heels of the New York Times article I referred to yesterday, I found yet another article that made me think. This time, it was talking about Wikipedia . I’m not going to quote the article (I try to avoid that - better you should read it directly), but it was mostly pointing out that, despite the criticisms, it was mostly quite accurate for the same reasons it is sometimes, particularly on the more obscure entries, misleading. The more people that read it, the more likely it is that something wrong will be caught, will be flagged, will be noted for its lacks. And, with all these people, working together, looking over each other’s shoulder for one purpose–to share knowledge with anyone who asks–it’s a marvel of surprising caliber.
I couldn’t agree more.
Man, I love Wikipedia. Give me a computer and a week with no one wanting anything and I could spend all day wandering through Wikipedia (OK, I have spent all day(s) wandering through Wikipedia). Ever wanted to know about Japanese history ? Hey, it’s in there. Lady Jane Grey ? It’s in there. String Theory ? You betcha. Nuthatches ? It’s there. Space accidents ? They got it. African American astronauts ? Yep. The Hope Diamond? Fruits Basket ? Dracula (pick one)? They have it, all cross-linked so you can start with Alfred the Great and follow it all the way to Elizabeth II (I’ve stopped linking ’cause, hey, it’s fun to search). The article I mentioned in the NYT times noted that too. Man, you can look up Nellie Bly and just wander around following links for hours. Again, this is the voice of experience.
But what about accuracy? After all, can’t anyone just edit it? Yes they can and anyone else can fix it if it’s broken. Citations run rampant through Wikipedia (I wish most encyclopedias cited their sources so definitively and completely), often with links so you can check them out. Related wikipedia articles are usually listed as well as outside sites that are applicable. And, I have to tell you, I’ve read a LOT of articles on Wikipedia. I have found errors, but, for the most part, I’ve been blown away by the completeness and accuracy of the information. Esoteric science articles, detailed animal descriptions, obscure but pivotal historical figures. Want to know where to find diamonds or how to smelt iron? It’s there. Want to know what the actual tenets of hindism are? We got that too. It’s a smorgasbord of everything you ever wanted to know, laid out and cross-referenced intuitively so you can find it. Even if I don’t end up citing Wikipedia, I can still use it as a resource for finding source documents for any number of subjects. I want to look something up for work, for myself, Wikipedia is my first stop, though usually not my last.
That’s not all though. Wikipedia, built and maintained by experts and laymen alike, is amazingingly readable and accessible. Not just finding the topics you want, but reading about complex topics in approachable language that makes it understandable. Many’s the time I’ve been stymied by some theoretical physics question that’s outside my expertise, only to find a very usable and helpful description in Wikipedia.
And all the other resources associated with it: wikisource (public domain literature and art), wikiquote (great resource for the quote happy), wikibooks (free textbooks), and much much more. All this, with no advertising, no apparent agenda other than knowledge is power and we should share it.
Damn, I love Wikipedia.
I’m into Wikipedia, too. As a place for publishing an article in your field of expertise, it’s the ultimate peer review. As a sometime historian and Biblical Studies scholar, I can look up a lot of useful background material. But…
It’s still a thing to be used with caution. Especially in my own areas of expertise, there’s a high amount of speculation offered as fact. Yes, eventually it gets challenged, and flagged for lack of citation, but that’s a slow process and there are often articles in Wikipedia that are pure BS.
Not to mention the amount of hijacking that goes on. Creationists are notorious for this, and often the articles related to evolution, modification of the species, Darwin, and biology in general are in a state of chaos from creationist hijacking until the editors can catch up with the situation. Oh yeah, and geology and cosmology as well.
So as cool as Wikipedia and it’s wiki-accessories are, it’s still advisable to approach the whole thing with a certain amount of caution.
I’m a huge Wikipedia fan, too. I’m always amazed at the info I find on there. The few times I’ve questioned some things I’ve Googled it and found out Wikipedia was right. I remember reading, however, that some schools have banned students from using Wikipedia as a source for papers, etc, which is probably a good idea.
They’ve banned it for the kids in my daughter’s school, which I’m OK with. I tell her to start with Wikipedia and use it as a stepping stone to primary sources. Unfortunately, her school also blocks the site at school which, in my opinion, takes it too far. It certainly isn’t blocked at MY house.
OHMIGOD! I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!
Your synopsis is absolutely correct. Sure, we shouldn’t have Wikipedia as the end all be all, but nothing should. Books are written and documented by people. People are swayed and opinionated and may favor one side or another. Research is never easy, because good research should always contain a variety of resources.
But Wikipedia does make a great launch pad. Since I’m writing a piece of historical fiction, the challenge always is to make sure my facts are straight. I always start at Wikipedia. It always gets my gears turning. Even when I’m stuck or have a moment of block, I click on a few links, and whole new wondrous inspirations unfold before me.
It’s a shame it’s banned from your daughter’s school. I suppose it does make some sense. It reminds me of when I was in school and they didn’t let us use calculators. Learning comes from process.