Week Three: Wikipedia
May 12, 2009
In January 2001, Wikipedia was launched (Millard, 2008) and so began one of the largest collaborative websites in the world. In simple terms, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and general reference site which is collaboratively maintained and written by volunteers from all over the world. With so much interaction from millions of users each day, Wikipedia can be considered as a perfect example of Web2.0. With such a large and open form of information sharing, there have to be pros and cons.
One of the advantages of Wikipedia is there is no single group sharing information and knowledge. It is a variety of people from across the world. This means that Wikipedia could be considered a form of Citizen Journalism where individuals are open to share information, and have that information passed around freely. Furthermore, the information that is shared on the website, can then be edited by others, and their knowledge can then be added on to make each entry in the encyclopedia much more detailed. Basically, the fact that anyone can add their own information to all the articles provides users with an infinite amount of knowledge as new information can be uploaded at any time.
Not only is Wikipedia a reference site, but it can also be used as a source for current, up-to-date news (Dee, 2007). The sheer volume of users and editors means that the website is constantly be updated. Twenty four hours a day, users from all over the world are logging in and updating it with new information. This constant flow of information means that the site is constantly up to date with things that are happening around the world. It is also arguable that the news found on Wikipedia is much less biased than what one would find on a News network or website.
This leads to the notion of bias. There have been many criticisms of Wikipedia , many of which claim that the system is biased and inconsistent. In fact, this is one of the very large problems with the website. The fact anyone with access to the internet is able to edit the website implies that a lot of the information may not be of a professional quality. The ability for anyone to edit even leads to constant cases of vandalism. Peoples credentials and qualifications are not considered when publishing information, instead, a form of consensus decision making is used to decide whether the information is worthy of staying on the site.
Though Wikipedia might have it’s holes, there is no denying that it is one of the most successful examples of user-generated content on the internet. It is rare for a website to reach a point where users contstantly work together from all corners of the globe to create, maintain and edit a single source of information. In this regard, Wikipedia really is a perfect example of Web2.0.
References:
Dee, J. 2007. All the News That’s Fit to Print Out: The New York Times Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html (accessed May 12th, 2009)
Millard, M. 2008. Wikipediots, Who are These Devoted, Even Obsessive Contributors to Wikipedia? Salt Lake City Weekly. http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-5129-feature-wikipediots-who-are-these-devoted-even-obsessive-contributors-to-wikipedia.html (accessed May 12th, 2009)
May 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hey Victor,
First of all I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed your blog entry this week on Wikipedia. I certainly agree with you when you say that Wikipedia is a perfect example of web 2.0 and you definitely highlighted some important pros and cons which stem from the websites investment in produsage. I found it interesting when you said that Wikipedia could be considered as a form of citizen journalism. It is true that Wikipedia and citizen journalism do share similar qualities and although I don’t necessarily disagree with your observation, I believe this similarity is due to the fact that they are both forms of produsage rather than Wikipedia being a form of citizen journalism.
You also state that it is arguable that the news found on Wikipedia is less biased than the news found on news networks or websites. Bias and the objective truth are certainly contentious issues which constantly undergo rigorous debate. What is the truth? Can anyone ever be truly objective? It seems to me that the retelling of information can never be truly objective as each individual is laden with their own personal bias. In my opinion Wikipedia does show bias, however unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia merely claims to present representations of knowledge which effectively, reflect the culture and the understandings of society.
May 14, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hey Vic/ktor,
Another interesting post. I was interested in your views on criticisms of bias on Wikipedia.
Personally I think that there is no doubt that bias exists on Wikipedia, as it does in most media sources. A source is really only considered bias if it differs from the dominant ideology of the particular society/culture that uses it. Media has to be biased in order to be relevant to people.
The issue with Internet resources is that they are accessible to people across the globe. This means that they must remain relevant to people worldwide and makes objectivity and truth harder to come by there are conflicting cultural and societal views. The issue with Wikipedia is not that it has too many users but rather that it has not got enough from diverse enough backgrounds. The dominant users of the Internet are from the USA and China. This population dominance means that there are more people sharing their ideology online and as such resources such as Wikipedia will become biased in favour of them.
The implications of this are that people on the wrong side of the digital divide will be further disadvantaged as the limited number of Internet users there mean that there is less support for their own particular bias.