Make no mistake Wikipedia is a tremendous digital asset to our culture. It is a breath of open access in an increasingly restrictive society. Its born of the seeds of true democracy and freedom of expression. I have referenced information found there many times in my blog posts.
Unfortunately, open access has an Achilles heel. The very openness that makes Wikipedia possible is also the thorn which will keep it from becoming the dictionary of the 21st Century.
There is an article at Inside Higher Ed entitled “A Stand Against Wikipedia” which addresses the challenge facing academia. It talks about the history department at Middlebury College who “voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia — while convenient — may not be trustworthy”
Of course there is the issue that college students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias as a reference in the first place.
There is plenty of good information on Wikipedia:
“Roy Rosenzweig, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, did an analysis of the accuracy of Wikipedia for The Journal of American History, and he found that in many entries, Wikipedia was as accurate or more accurate than more traditional encyclopedias. He said that the quality of material was inconsistent, and that biographical entries were generally well done, while more thematic entries were much less so”
As long as it remains an unedited source there will be fundamental questions regarding its validity. Much like the theory which says that a group is as strong as its weakest link, Wikipedia will only be as strong as it weakest post. This issue reminds me of the one that stock message boards faced during the dot com boom. They started out as a great resource for the investor, a place where people could share their knowledge of the stock, the company or the industry as a whole. A true asset. Soon; however, the message boards became irrelevant to the serious investor as people (or companies) began posting any information to pump up or bring down the stock.
According to an article by Rick Jeliffe on the O’Reilly Network Microsoft offered him payment to “provide more balance on Wikipedia”
Wikipedia’s initiatives are at the forefront of the open access movement and with a little tinkering they can solidify their place as a leading online resource in the 21st century. They are one of the few organizations that Google sees in the rear view mirror.