Before
reading these modules, I did not use Wikipedia as a reliable source, mainly because
teachers or professors always told me not too. Therefore for assignments and
papers I did not trust this content. I did however use Wikipedia if I wanted a
quick overview of a topic for my own knowledge, because I believed it gave me
enough insight instantly on a subject. After reading these articles, I gained
more knowledge about how Wikipedia works and functions, but overall I do not
think I changed my opinion. I still would not use Wikipedia as an academic
source, but I do take pleasure in why Wikipedia endorses this type of encyclopedia.
The reason I would not use Wikipedia as a reliable source is because in Royal,
C. & Kapila, D. (2009) article they discuss that Wikipedia reflects the
people who use it the most. Bias is created, as current topics are more covered
and as anyone can edit and change the content it leads to people thinking the
information is inaccurate and incorrect (Royal, C. & Kapila, D, 2009). This
bias is also explained by Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009), they explain
that out of all the Internet users, only 13% are actually creators and
therefore the other 87% are not contributing to creating and discussing information
online. This proves the point that Wikipedia reflects those who chose to
contribute. Although the information processed on Wikipedia can easily be changed,
and only certain people will take time out of their day to contribute, making
it bias, I do actually enjoy why the site was created and is so popular. Van
Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) also discuss the importance of Wikipedia,
they say it is a co-creation, as the users define the information. It allows
masses of people to participate which gains collectivism, participation and
creativity from a wide variety of people. Leadbeater (2006) says that consumers
become workers because they devote their time and effort to develop ideas for
one another, I think this is what our world should be aiming towards. Everyone
is seen as equal and has the equal opportunity to be creative. Although also in
this article Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) explain that usually this
information is provided to satisfy themselves, to receive the most views or
comments, it is not usually shared in order to help others. I am really torn
between the content being bias and the idea of an open and free website for
writers and editors to share their insight. Technology is constantly improving
and changing, which relates to Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) article
that discusses how documents make social interactions and practices. The
Internet (Wikipedia) is simply just a new form of documents. All along
documents have been shared and created through networks of people. Overtime
this fundamentally may change from a piece of paper to a computer but we will
always have a way of circulating information in a document form. Wikipedia is a
prime example of this because it is crowd and community based, everyone is
sharing their own understanding of a topic which is being changed and altered
by others, making it a peer production. As for me, honestly until I get the “go
ahead” from professors I will not be using Wikipedia as a reliable academic
source, but I appreciate the way it allows masses of people to participate and I
will continue to use Wikipedia for my own quick and easy searches.
 |
| suupedupscience.blogspot.com |
References
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web
2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp
855-874.
Your take and experiences on Wikipedia are very similar to mine. I did have a professor for a historiography class this year, Mike Driedger who said it was a useful source for an introduction and background to a topic or a Historian. I used it this way and did find it helpful. The thing about bias, which you seem to have issue with is we all have it and it is not necessarily a bad thing because different takes on topics and issues creates discussion. Who won the War of 1812 is a good example because by examining from an American, Aboriginal, or Canadian/British you may be able to see and understand the whole picture better. I think the bigger problem with Wikipedia is that posters do so anonymously, which allows the author to hide from their bias. The tweet that Professor Bradley sent out (I recommend you read it if you haven't already) is a good example of why knowing the author would be helpful for Wikipedia. If you could read about the author (maybe on Wikipedia), you could then form an opinion on their bias and use it to come to a better understanding of the truth or at least the truth as you choose to see it.
ReplyDeleteI found your thoughts on consumers becoming the workers a very interesting topic as they are investing their time and resources into collaborating for each other; but they are also working for the good of their community by supplying even more consumers with information to perhaps re-think/re-word what they know in their futures. This brings about a reoccurring theme of community involvement, democratic rights and a constant need to edit life. Consequently, we are hoping to strive for such ideas (like freedom of speech for example) in the future yet adapting to change is a problem for many individuals, especially with how fast such advancements occur. Although with such collaboration of differing views comes clashes of cultures and religious views/activities. I hope for all of our sakes that we can continue to be a multicultural community with more than one dominant view on each idea; however, this has just seemed to cause chaos in the past. Here’s to improving the future!
ReplyDeleteInteresting Post! Your use of Wikipedia seems to be the same as many people (i.e. ok for general information, but not an academic report). Your post focuses on the accuracy and potential for biased information more than mine, and I think you make some valid points. Authors tend to write about things that interest them, however, since Wikipedia is anonymous, I feel that authors are afforded more freedom, and there's a potential lack of accountability. I find the quote "all users are equally creative and are created equally" quite interesting – It’s a very democratic way of thinking. I think that everyone should have an opinion and has the right to be heard, however, I feel that most people tend to value the input of experts rather than amateurs. I think this is where a lot of contention arises when it comes to the accuracy of posts.
ReplyDeleteI too am ‘torn’ between the importance of open access and the potential for bias – but I feel Wikipedia is going in the right direction.