Wikipedia...
...Should I, or Shouldn't I?
Many people believe that Wikipedia is the future of the internet, with collaboration from facebook to myspace, online dating, and internet weight loss. The world is moving more and more onto the internet, especially when it comes to collaboration. No longer are the books in libraries the main source of information for college students; instead these students are leading us further into the digital age. Formerly when you wanted to do research, you had to take a trip to the library today that trip is much shorter people are doing their research on the internet while lying in bed or sitting at their computer desk. Today on the internet you can download whole books from romance to mystery to magic. On top of the entertainment readings you can find entire encyclopedias, indexes of scholarly articles and newspaper clippings now on the internet. Encyclopedia Britannica which used to come in thirty some odd extremely heavy books can now be easily sifted through in a weightless manner on the internet.
Many people on the other hand disagree that Wikipedia is the future, and if it is they say that we are all doomed. These people worry that Wikipedia opens the door to inaccuracies, in the end it will hurt people a student doing research for example, what happens when they think that they found that piece of information that is perfect and will get them that A grade they’ve been working hard for, then come to find out, it was false… Many people have made an attempt to sabotage the project, whether by posting false information, or claiming to be a subject matter expert. It is true that this site is updated by its users; many of the people the "updaters" have hands on experience with the site. But often people do not believe that the "updaters" are true professionals in the information they present. Wikipedia does no background check for membership, in fact the only questions asked when signing up for membership is what you would like your username to be and what you want your password to be. So how can we be sure that we can trust the information on the site?
he cons Wikipedia understands that there will be many objections to the site, and it makes clear examples to explain the objections and refute them.
few examples of the objections to the site and the explanations given;
Objection- "I can’t imagine having my golden prose edited by any passer-by. It's mine so why would I let others touch it?Explanation- Wikipedians do not attempt to make another’s work their own when they make an addition, they consider it working together. They give the example that a user of Wikipedia wrote..."I thought I understood Gödel's incompleteness theorem pretty well, and since the then-existing article was short and incomplete, I decided to rewrite it. Since then, several people have chipped in, sometimes rewriting a paragraph, sometimes criticizing an omission, sometimes deleting parts. I didn't agree with all changes, but with most of them. No material is ever lost since Wikipedia stores all previous versions of all articles. So I reverted a few changes back. Overall, the article is now much better than I could ever have written alone."
The site explains that the more people that collectively work together the better the information the site contains. This explains how people are moving away from the once hugely popular print version of encyclopedia, and moving online where they can partake in the evolution of an encyclopedia.
Objection- "Wikipedia will be ruined by cranks who post ridiculous theories on the internet."
Explanation- Wikipedia responds saying that there are very few cranks within it, and that if a crank does come through it is easy to revert before the changes. Many sites that post information have complete control over it and it can't be changed by anyone other than the owner, on Wikipedia if there is wrong information, and user can correct it. If it was right in the first place, and then made wrong, it’s easy to switch it back. If someone continually creates wrong information and keeps reverting back, they can be blocked.
Objection- "Many ignorant people who think they know stuff will riddle articles with errors and serious omissions." (This was one of the biggest concerns when using Wikipedia as a source of information)
Explanation- Wikipedia straight up admits that Wikipedia is packed with amateurs, but they also say that the more amateurs the more new postings. With these new postings comes more corrections, and that just means more really good information. The bigger the error or omission the quicker something is fixed. Often amateurs interact with the articles more than add to it, they post questions to show where the article needs more information, thus the amateurs contribute to the expansion of Wikipedia.
Read all of the objections and explanations.
The pro's Wikipedia is a user updated online encyclopedia, all of the information on any of the millions of topics was created by a user, someone like us who hopefully would be an expert on the topic. Wikipedia has so many users, that if an error is submitted it is usually corrected within minutes. Also Wikipedia makes it easy to correct the work of a troll who goes in and posts garbage and false information. You simply need to go into the topic and look in its history; there you can find all of the former information that was posted on the web page and it can simply be recalled if need be. Also I believe that Wikipedia does what many other information texts can do. It brings in a first hand experience of the information it presents.