Like most people, I think that there is a time and a place for Wikipedia. Like most online tools, I think that its place is not in the professional world. However, my view is not based on Wikipedia’s unreliability, inaccuracy and uncorroborated evidence, rather the fact that it is innapropriate to rely on secondary sources in a professional context. Universally, secondary sources (including Britannica) if left uncorroborated may not be reliable. Accordingly, before blaming websites for the unreliability information online, there is a need to spend more time teaching about the limitations of all information sources, including Wikipedia, and emphasizing the skills of critical analysis of primary and secondary sources (Bruns 2008, 132).
In reading condemning comments about Wikipedia, it is interesting to note that many other websites have gone unscathed. Wikipedia appears to be the perennial poster child of web 2.0 (Bruns 2008, 133), and is the most often used example of collaboration, open source and knowledge drawn to by the media. Accordingly, Wikipedia can be distinguished from its printed counter parts, by enabling users to create a network of knowledge that is structured in an ad hoc manner through multiple links between individual pieces of information within the knowledge base (Bruns 2008, 102). It must be noted that a key difference between Wikipedia traditional encyclopedias is its editorial process.
Too often is Wikipedia blamed for being incomplete, offering limited in scope, being poorly edited, lacking sources or otherwise being defective (Bruns 2008, 115). Accordingly, Wikipedia often used as the scapegoat for inaccuracies, when in fact the author and editor should have corroborated his/her own sources to prove reliability before printing. A contemporary example of Wikipedia being blamed in a professional context was last week, when a fake quote was circulated in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre, was replicated in newspapers in major British, Indian and Australian newspapers. Instead of condemning the journalist and questioning the mainstream media’s gate keeping process, commentators on this story chose to blame Wikipedia for containing inaccuracies. As Jason Brummond, editor in chief of the Daily Iowan, notes, for journalists Wikipedia a good initial source, “but you go from there to find what most people would consider a more reputable source.”
Further, a common misconception is that Wikipedia contains inaccurate information compared to printed encyclopedia’s. However, rather than deem the information inaccurate, it is more pertinent to point out the vast differences between articles online. It is noted by Shaw , that Wikipedia is “maddenly uneven”. It can be impressive in one entry (the entry on Naval Battle of Guadalcanal includes 138 endnotes, 18 references and seven external links) and sloppy in another (it misspells the name of AJR’s editor). Its topics range from the weighty (the Darfur conflict) to the inconsequential (a list of all episodes of the TV series “Canada’s Worst Handyman”). In contrast Bruns (2008), focuses his arguments on the fact that accuracy is achieved through the editorial process, where only the accurate contributions survive. Supporting his theories is a 2005 study by Science Magazine Nature, which revealed equal inadequacies (4 each) in 48 science articles in both Wikipedia and Britannica.
Hannah, you make a strong argument in the defence of Wikipedia. You’re right, it is not simply a case of blaming Wikipedia for not providing accurate information. I too find it fascinating that people will refer soley to Wikipedia for information.
However, does that not lead to the question of how can information on Wikipedia be made more accurate? Yes, accuracy is likely to be produced through the editing process, but what if that process could be sped up? I believe it would be of benefit for professionals, backed by references and alongside citizens, to contribute to entries concerning their profession. I realise that considering the scope of Wikipedia, it is not reasonable to think that this would eliminate the unevenness, but it would certainly reduce it. I also realise that this relies heavily on professionals actually taking the time to contribute, but think of the depth of knowledge that could be achieved!
I can see a professional application from a public relations perspective. Wikipedia as a collaborative knowledge base has the potential to either make or break an unstable organisation. It is in the best interests of an organisation to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is supple and accurate. By doing this, the organisation is being proactive in ensuring that the information used/reported by people, who perhaps haven’t done thorough research, is accurate.
I belive that this could only strengthen Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.