Spring Break
Wikipedia Critics Are Behind The Times
Bryan Murphy
Issue date: 10/12/07 Section: Commentary
The free encyclopedia. Free of charge and free to edit, it's the ninth most popular Web site on the internet; 8.2 percent of internet users check it daily. At over two million articles in English alone, and over 5.5 million in all languages, it's the modern-day Library of Alexandria, the Internet's greatest contribution to the advancement and propagation of human knowledge.
And less than 10 percent of academics - less than one in 10 of the professionally knowledgeable - make any attempt to help it along. Ph.D's and laureates are some of the first to advance upon it, torches in hand and scorn on their lips.
Ah, Wikipedia. Its popularity is undeniable. Its accuracy and honor have been defended by better men than I. "Nature" ran an article proclaiming that Wikipedia was not significantly more inaccurate than The Encyclopedia Britannica. MIT researches ran a study showing that the average vulgar edit on Wikipedia survives only 102 seconds. The facts are there - it is indisputable. The open-source encyclopedia is working; those who seek to dismiss Wikipedia, its validity and its importance, will soon take their places in history's litany of forgotten dogmatists. In 20 years, certainly, we will look back on the charges leveled against Wikipedia and they will seem as fanciful as the words, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
While some of the hysteria and controversy surrounding Wikipedia is nonsense, much of it can be understood in light of the fact that many of the antagonists in the WikiWar have only the vaguest conception of the entity they're fighting. People understand that Wikipedia is available to edit by anyone. Some then jump to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a frothing rabble of editorial tyrants, with each article the compendium of the two cents and prejudices of the individuals who've written it. This conception of what Wikipedia is as flawed as imagining that because we live in a democracy, where all contribute to the law-making process, then every citizen has the power to make laws at will.
And less than 10 percent of academics - less than one in 10 of the professionally knowledgeable - make any attempt to help it along. Ph.D's and laureates are some of the first to advance upon it, torches in hand and scorn on their lips.
Ah, Wikipedia. Its popularity is undeniable. Its accuracy and honor have been defended by better men than I. "Nature" ran an article proclaiming that Wikipedia was not significantly more inaccurate than The Encyclopedia Britannica. MIT researches ran a study showing that the average vulgar edit on Wikipedia survives only 102 seconds. The facts are there - it is indisputable. The open-source encyclopedia is working; those who seek to dismiss Wikipedia, its validity and its importance, will soon take their places in history's litany of forgotten dogmatists. In 20 years, certainly, we will look back on the charges leveled against Wikipedia and they will seem as fanciful as the words, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
While some of the hysteria and controversy surrounding Wikipedia is nonsense, much of it can be understood in light of the fact that many of the antagonists in the WikiWar have only the vaguest conception of the entity they're fighting. People understand that Wikipedia is available to edit by anyone. Some then jump to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a frothing rabble of editorial tyrants, with each article the compendium of the two cents and prejudices of the individuals who've written it. This conception of what Wikipedia is as flawed as imagining that because we live in a democracy, where all contribute to the law-making process, then every citizen has the power to make laws at will.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Gregory Kohs
posted 10/12/07 @ 4:27 PM EST
Bryan, once you've moved forward from being a third-semester Econ major... say, 12 years from now... you'll begin to see why Wikipedia didn't last. The lawsuits are starting to fly now (see Fuzzy Zoeller, and more recently Associated Press vs. (Continued…)
Rick
posted 10/13/07 @ 4:41 AM EST
I think the point of Mr. Murphy's commentary was that Wikipedia is an Internet-based antidote to intellectual snobbery and academic pretense, and I agree completely. (Continued…)
Post a Comment