Why Wiki?

I remember when I was younger when I wanted to find out information, I flipped through the pages of an encyclopedia. Research began with my fingers gliding across the row of dark green books with gold embossing that sat on my family’s bookshelves. If I was writing a paper on Zimbabwe, I looked in the “XY & Z” volume of our encyclopedia set, using the information as a springboard for the rest of my research. As I got older, and my school assignments demanded a little more, I realized the limitation of the dictionaries.

My family's set has been sitting on the same bookshelf for years, and the fact is what it says about Iraq back then will hardly give me the important information I need now. Dictionaries are expensive, and are quickly redundant. The fact is I will likely never purchase my own set.

The reason is because with the Internet we have access to so much more information. A wiki site alone provides more than a dictionary ever could, but some people argue that such sources are not reliable, and inherently flawed.

A wiki is a method of organizing information. Its primary purpose is to compile information, and allow the users to change it as they see fit. Wikipedia is my personal favorite example of this.

On Wikipedia I can look up an extensive amount of information in much the same way as a dictionary. The extent of information varies, but I find that on the whole it provides the same kind of service as a traditional dictionary -- basic information from which to springboard into deeper research.

Critics of the method state that without proper monitoring, and overseeing board or editor to state whether the information is accurate, there is too much opportunity for biased or false information.

I recognize the potential for misuse, ignorance or flat out vandalism. The fact is if I wanted to speak poorly of a politician, or misrepresent a topic, it would be easy to hop on and do so. The following comic from video game gurus and cultural commentators (however irreverent) Penny Arcade illustrates this point amusingly with the this comic.

I disagree with the criticism that such websites have received. I believe that the potential for incorrect, biased or even intentionally hurtful information is possible, but no more so than traditional journalism or research. Although the editorial control is diminished (but not, as some would state, completely non-existent) it presents a new possibility: the editorial control of collective thought.

Because millions of people are using Wikipedia every day, the potential for abuse is quickly overridden. Instead of an editorial board stopping bad information from going through, millions of people with millions of perspectives watchdog the sites, and are able to change things back and forth.

I've mentioned before the possibility for immature conversation and argument online, but luckily this is where the wiki creators got it right. The system is set up for just such on occasion. Have a look at the Wikipedia post on George W. Bush.

Obviously such a controversial figure presents a lot of divergent opinions, and easily opponents to Bush's policies would be likely to vandalize the site. But the Wikipedia staffers keep watch over these things, and place limitations over the most highly disputed articles. In the case of the George W. Bush article, only registered users with good standing may edit the page now, due to misuse. Scroll further down the article and you will find red stop signs wherever users have felt the information is not neutral. Click on the sign to join the discussion, which will eventually lead to a final, hopefully more neutral piece.

These are just a few of the verification and discussion tools that Wikipedia offers, making a dictionary that is more than a list of facts. The dictionary is in fact a conversation, a representation of our collective knowledge. Although the potential for misinformation is there, I feel that the massive user base provides a fact checking system that will create a natural homeostasis, keeping the information relatively accurate.

I would not want to read a research paper based off of a Wikipedia article without more research, but like the dictionaries of my youth, it can serve as a springboard for more information.