I have to say that reading http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version really gave me a good laugh! It did raise up some important issues though. I am no expert on Wikipedia, always a reader but never an editor. But I am thinking out loud and I would like to know whether or not you agree with me.
First of all, administrators are humans, and by nature are inclined to take a side on an argument. Would users sometimes blame the admins for blocking them or protecting a page they shared in simply because those admins did not agree with what the users had to say? Is it possible that protection policies implemented by wikipedia's admins may itself result in bias for certain thoughts by certain users?
Wikipedia assumes users have good intentions, and implements NPOV principle for allowing users to be more intellectually independent. Is it morally fair to expose users to an encyclopedia where sources are not trusted, and where this intellectual freedom is at risk of falling into a bag of rubbish information. Even if work is cited, normal users (like myself) won't go back and verify those sources. How better will it be then if editors are to approve all changes, as Jimmy Wales proposed?
With all its good intentions, Wikipedia may not be able to maintain fully its egalitarian stand. With more and more people using the web, with many from the younger age group, one may start to wonder whether information I read was put up by a 12 year old. And I don't personally think I want to go back and check all the history on a topic or verify its sources. Wikipedia is also a perfect place to place rumours - and a rumour just needs a few minutes to spread (until admins hear of them and decide to remove the page).
Can we say that wikipedia is a useful resource then?I think the positives of wikipedia are enormous. Its a place where thinkers/intellectuals/or even normal users are given the chance to post their research or knowledge for the benefit of all. It encourages people to try and provide information, and know that all their work will not be thrown away (especially if posted in a high traffic site such as wikipedia). I believe it will provide self-satisfaction for me to know that I am able to express my thoughts and knowledge in public, and raise up an issue that I believe needs more people to look at. It is also a place of collaborative knowledge, a place to be heard, to argue on anything and everything.
My opinion is that wikipedia is a great pool of knowledge. Only we need to know what we may fall into if we trust it too much. Users using it for research should be 'wikipedia literate' - and this literacy will improve their creativity and critical thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally I like Wikipedia and often use it as my starting point. That said, I agree with a lot of what you say here, Deena, certainly in terms of verification of sources and being Wikipedia-literate. You raise some interesting points with regards to the possible biases stemming from administrator actions, which of course, is always a possibility when free thought is edited.
ReplyDelete