Wikipedia has been a point of conversation in academia for many years. I can not remember a single research based class where a teacher did not warn us, the students, of Wikipedia's unreliability.
Wikipedia has its uses, in fact, I would go out on a limb and say it's an excellent source of basic information on given subjects. Wikipedia's open editing policy allows a massive body of contributors from which information may be pooled. Assuming that Wikipedia's contributors are well informed students of the topic upon which they are giving insight, Wikipedia's platform is the pinnacle of human intellectual forums; unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Wikipedia, for all of its potential, often shows that manipulation of information by an ambiguous, unregulated individuals allows not only ignorant, but also self interested contributors to distribute misinformation.
What drives people, then, to modify Wikipedia's entries? Many are motivated out of an interest to better the website, attempting to clarify and inform others on the topic at hand; unfortunately many of these people are often mis-informed as well incapable of (or too lazy to) conveying valuable ideas. Ignorance manifests at every corner, mis-communications become the norm, and writings on Wikipedia convey incorrect information of little value.
Others are motivated by self interest; executives at Microsoft have hired individuals from around the globe to edit Microsoft's Wikipedia entry to convey a more positive view of the software giant. this blatant attempt at misleading Wikipedia's users is insulting and it diminishes the value of what could be an incredible source of knowledge.
Some people are driven by comedy. Entries on anything from our nations forefathers to popular sports have been edited sheerl for comedic effect. This article from Huffington Post shows some of the comedic interpretations. While some are complete nonsense (see Leonardo DaVinci Wikipedia entry) intended to garner a cheap laugh, others are serious political and social critiques.
Reviewing a few Wikipedia articles, one of the most common themes was the removal of content labeled as vandalism. Wikipedia does have a very quick turnaround, often reverting Wikipedia pages to older formats within minutes of vandalism. The Abraham Lincoln Wikipedia entry has one case of vandalism which was corrected in less than a minute.
Misinformation, however, is harder to spot. The Marie Antoinette page used to feature a section on how revered she was by the general population, Wikipedia even listed "let them eat cake" as a direct quote for a period of time. This article, however, has been well reviewed and now seems a stable source of information. The citation page at the bottom appears to be a reliable source of scholastic materials on Marie Antoinette. In the talk section, Marie Antoinette is argued over by scholars, sources are disputed, and improvements are constantly made on the page.
More modern topics such as famous rapper, Lil' Wayne receive scrutiny not only from scholarly, but also individuals unrelated to the field who are notoriously unprofessional and mis-informed. In one post on the talk page of the Lil Wayne Wikipedia page a fan points out an incorrect fact: "Yeah man, Dwayne only has one daughter and one son, there definately is NOT two daughters, so that REALLY needs a dick , cause it should have been changed by now. That would be great y'all. ^-stephaanie (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)"
Who knows, rarely is an edit on Wikipedia motivated by malice, however, there have been cases of slander through Wikipedia. I find that the real problems with the information in Wikipedia entries arise in relation to ignorance and comedy.
You've really raised your game since last spring. Dr. Cox
ReplyDelete