The advent of information age has been marked by plethora of innovative and creative platforms of access. As the evolution continues, it is not the content, but the ease of its availability, authenticity, comprehensibility and most important, the lucidity of its presentation, that takes primary focus. As a result, the source that caters to as many aspects, as mentioned above, becomes more and more popular. This is precisely why we are witnessing a novel encyclopedia experience in the form of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia today boasts of more than 5 million articles in 100 languages covering expanses of discussion over the widest possible canvas of human deliberation. It reflects a collaborative effort of information origination, modification and presentation open to potentially every mortal. The encyclopedia is based on fundamental principles (see Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars/) of consent wherein content derogatory to a subject's image isn't allowed. Also, there is strict adherence to intellectual property rights, laws of copyrighting, and those against plagiarism. There is continuous content management with regard to nature, accuracy, legal aspects and most importantly, temporal relevance. So where does the problem lie?
Wikipedia's credibility problems have been attributed to its openness. The very fact that it is open, makes it vulnerable to each of its assets. Who are the ones that manage content? Who are the ones that contribute? Who are the ones that access it? Wikipedia does explicitly define 'contributor' (one who has successfully edited atleast 10 articles) and 'qualified editor' (one who has authority to edit any article) but it is still an open norm devoid of authoritative legitimacy. So is Wikipedia a credible source?
Wikipedia today boasts of more than 5 million articles in 100 languages covering expanses of discussion over the widest possible canvas of human deliberation. It reflects a collaborative effort of information origination, modification and presentation open to potentially every mortal. The encyclopedia is based on fundamental principles (see Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars/) of consent wherein content derogatory to a subject's image isn't allowed. Also, there is strict adherence to intellectual property rights, laws of copyrighting, and those against plagiarism. There is continuous content management with regard to nature, accuracy, legal aspects and most importantly, temporal relevance. So where does the problem lie?
Wikipedia's credibility problems have been attributed to its openness. The very fact that it is open, makes it vulnerable to each of its assets. Who are the ones that manage content? Who are the ones that contribute? Who are the ones that access it? Wikipedia does explicitly define 'contributor' (one who has successfully edited atleast 10 articles) and 'qualified editor' (one who has authority to edit any article) but it is still an open norm devoid of authoritative legitimacy. So is Wikipedia a credible source?
Mr. Credible
Credibility of a content scales with its usability and acceptance. According to a recent survey by CNET news.com, Wikipedia is the 36th most visited site. Now, if we weed out pornographic sites and popular portals, Wikipedia is certainly up there. Also, it has got much higher hit rates than any other online encyclopedia. Such a large number of information seekers cannot be compromising for incorrect content. What drives people towards Wikipedia, is that it is free to access. If you have not signed up for Britannica (paid membership), most of the articles and subject matter is inaccessible. In today's age, one cannot afford to be paid for information. Secondly, every subject is covered in a lucid, systematic manner right from background, introductory description, special features, pros cons with links for every related word or topic. This means, if a reader gets stuck somewhere in an article over a related but an unknown word, he can click on its link, pull that word's page understand it in the related context and get back to his article. These features actually help someone like an engineer to comprehend the topics on law. As a result, Wikipedia content is used and accepted much more than any other source.
For a simple example, when one types ‘telephone’ in the search box of both Wikipredia and Britannica, here is what you get:
Credibility of a content scales with its usability and acceptance. According to a recent survey by CNET news.com, Wikipedia is the 36th most visited site. Now, if we weed out pornographic sites and popular portals, Wikipedia is certainly up there. Also, it has got much higher hit rates than any other online encyclopedia. Such a large number of information seekers cannot be compromising for incorrect content. What drives people towards Wikipedia, is that it is free to access. If you have not signed up for Britannica (paid membership), most of the articles and subject matter is inaccessible. In today's age, one cannot afford to be paid for information. Secondly, every subject is covered in a lucid, systematic manner right from background, introductory description, special features, pros cons with links for every related word or topic. This means, if a reader gets stuck somewhere in an article over a related but an unknown word, he can click on its link, pull that word's page understand it in the related context and get back to his article. These features actually help someone like an engineer to comprehend the topics on law. As a result, Wikipedia content is used and accepted much more than any other source.
For a simple example, when one types ‘telephone’ in the search box of both Wikipredia and Britannica, here is what you get:
Now, as a user who does not want to pay, Wikipedia certainly is much more appealing. Secondly if one observes, Wikipedia goes about the topic in a very systematic manner right from layman’s version of telephone to IP phones. On the other hand, Britannica (although it’s a preview of the main article) starts with a basic definition, and then makes it complex and jumps to Bell’s patent. Also, it does give an outline of the actual article (that is accessible to only members) so as to try and lure users towards the membership.
Defining Correctness........
Now, talking about content's academic correctness. In a comparative study conducted, by the Nature Journal, on the quality of content between Wikipedia and Britannica articles, it was found that out of the 42 articles compared, four of Wikipedia's articles had minor flaws as against Britannica's three. As far as fundamental errors were concerned, Wikipedia had two as against Britannica's one. This clearly shows that even the so called 'mother of all information sources' is not flawless. Also correctness, to an extent, is determined by the context and purpose. For instance, a math book for grade 2 may use the terms speed and velocity interchangeably whereas a math book for grade 7 will distinguish between speed and velocity as a scalar and a vector quantity respectively. The grade 2 book is correct too, in its context wherein it means rate of motion. Hence in an attempt to articulate explanation in a manner that is universally easy to comprehend, Wikipedia's articles might occasionally be 'inaccurate'. But, given the results of the study, Wikipedia certainly cannot be considered a source that is not at all credible. Certainly one wants to think twice before using it as Wikipedia's articles lack responsibility.
One must give credit to the Wikipedia's loyalists who continuously monitor content so as to try and maintain sanity. As a result, most of the articles are updated. Secondly, every article has a room for improvement as each of them can be openly edited, within the correctness parameters. This, more often than not gives a particular subject a fresh perspective. Encyclopedias like Britannica cannot incorporate this creativity and dynamism as the subject is addressed by scholarly conventionalism. Wikipedia's approach adds color and diverse dimensions which not only broadens the scope of a particular subject, but also enhances its scope of usability, acceptability and hence credibility.
Now, talking about content's academic correctness. In a comparative study conducted, by the Nature Journal, on the quality of content between Wikipedia and Britannica articles, it was found that out of the 42 articles compared, four of Wikipedia's articles had minor flaws as against Britannica's three. As far as fundamental errors were concerned, Wikipedia had two as against Britannica's one. This clearly shows that even the so called 'mother of all information sources' is not flawless. Also correctness, to an extent, is determined by the context and purpose. For instance, a math book for grade 2 may use the terms speed and velocity interchangeably whereas a math book for grade 7 will distinguish between speed and velocity as a scalar and a vector quantity respectively. The grade 2 book is correct too, in its context wherein it means rate of motion. Hence in an attempt to articulate explanation in a manner that is universally easy to comprehend, Wikipedia's articles might occasionally be 'inaccurate'. But, given the results of the study, Wikipedia certainly cannot be considered a source that is not at all credible. Certainly one wants to think twice before using it as Wikipedia's articles lack responsibility.
One must give credit to the Wikipedia's loyalists who continuously monitor content so as to try and maintain sanity. As a result, most of the articles are updated. Secondly, every article has a room for improvement as each of them can be openly edited, within the correctness parameters. This, more often than not gives a particular subject a fresh perspective. Encyclopedias like Britannica cannot incorporate this creativity and dynamism as the subject is addressed by scholarly conventionalism. Wikipedia's approach adds color and diverse dimensions which not only broadens the scope of a particular subject, but also enhances its scope of usability, acceptability and hence credibility.
Its not Wikipedia or Britannica....Its Wikipedia and Britannica
Occasionally, mishaps like the Seiganthaler and Curry situations do happen, but I guess, Wikipedia as an effort toward information's dynamism, should be given due chances. There are a lot more positives in the evolution of Wikipedia. What people do not understand is that Wikipedia never said that it be replaced by Britannica. It is people who want to compare the novelty with conventionalism and hence take sadist pleasures of proving the obvious. I believe, Wikipedia is a totally different platform and should not be viewed on the same lines as Britannica. If one is looking for scholarly material at the risk of probable difficulty of understanding it, Britannica is the place but if wants to get a generic idea of a totally new concept, Wikipedia proves much better. It has its unique place in the world of organized information and should be used in the manner its nature demands, so as to conceive its credibility.
Occasionally, mishaps like the Seiganthaler and Curry situations do happen, but I guess, Wikipedia as an effort toward information's dynamism, should be given due chances. There are a lot more positives in the evolution of Wikipedia. What people do not understand is that Wikipedia never said that it be replaced by Britannica. It is people who want to compare the novelty with conventionalism and hence take sadist pleasures of proving the obvious. I believe, Wikipedia is a totally different platform and should not be viewed on the same lines as Britannica. If one is looking for scholarly material at the risk of probable difficulty of understanding it, Britannica is the place but if wants to get a generic idea of a totally new concept, Wikipedia proves much better. It has its unique place in the world of organized information and should be used in the manner its nature demands, so as to conceive its credibility.
1 comment:
It's wikipedia that is spearheading the global push to keep information in the public domain. It's a paradigm shift from those heady days when information assymetry was a key differentiator between the purported haves and have-nots.
The breadth of information available dwarfs its inadequacies. It's a general purpose tool which can be conveniently used to conduct smart single-click research (which business analysts will vouch for) or advertise brands differently ( Brand managers ensure their presence on a wikipedia page). The focus has now shifted from accruing information to using the same for profitable ends thanks to free and available medium like wikipedia.
Another drastic difference has been the movement to democratize content. Never before has such a vast repository of end-user generated content attained universal acceptance. Ensuring the veracity has been a concern, as u rightly pointed out, however, that vaguely registers as a serious one!
Just to illustrate my point.. I purchased the personal edition of the Encarta encyclopedia last year. I've seldom touched my copy in comparison to the significant searches I've conducted on Wikipedia.
And finally, Aloha Amol! This blog is impressive. I'm blogrolling this place. No objections, I presume..
Keep blogging and drop in my pad sometime!
http://nareshb.wordpress.com/
Post a Comment