If Google had those Facebook "like" buttons for the websites it displays, I would definitely press that like button for Wikipedia. With all the forewarnings from high school history teachers to biology professors about how unreliable Wikipedia is for a scholarly final paper on the gulf war or on a lab report, Wikipedia has provided me with easy access to valid information on many subjects. Andrew Dalby in his book The World and Wikipedia: How we are Editing Reality more or less supports my preference to use Wikipedia over all other encyclopedias. As a wikiepdian himself, Dalby knows the processes which take place in the presentation of information on Wikipedia and makes a thorough and insightful argument on why Wikipedia, despite it's 32% error rate, continues to be a strong competitor against other reputable online encyclopedias.
Neupedia, established by Jimmy Wales, was the predecessor of Wikipedia and was created to be a scholarly web-based encyclopedia. Since then, Wikipedia has become an interactive website where the general public can write and edit articles on various topics which is why many users of Wikipedia regard Wikipedia "To be refreshingly democratic"(pg 54). It cannot be argued that Wikipedia has proved to be a global broadcast of information which is easy to use and available to all. Dalby talks about the "circle of knowledge"(pg 21) which Wikipedia has become, providing it's services in 265 languages and allowing the writing and critiquing of articles by people around the world.
To the many who have opposed my use of Wikipedia, Dalby's information on how more and more professionals and scholars in the subjects presented in Wikipedia are contributing to the site is a strong rebuttal. Articles are posted on Wikipedia on an hourly bases with hundreds of people adding cited information and statistics while others are editing the information which are questionably false. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is becoming a respectable and notorious online encyclopedia like the tried and true encyclopedias promoted by schools. I would venture to say that if Gaius Plinious Secundus, the famous encyclopedist, were alive today, he would prefer Wikipedia over Encyclopedia Britannica because of the problem of revising and updating encyclopedias which Wikipedia has solved.
Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly, states that he wants America to be a society where"The philosophies of science, of history, of language, of technology and of religion"(pg. 199) are taught to everyone. If the public is charged a sum of money to view information pertaining to these subjects, it is inevitable that people will be less willing obtain those information. As supported by the Nature survey mentioned by Dalby, Wikipedia's free and public source is more attractive to information seekers. And so, Wikipedia can contribute to Neil Postman's efforts to educate America.
My reading and analysis of Andrew Dalby's book is unquestionably biased and I will admit it. On an side note, I went on Wikipedia after my reading to research Encyclopedia Britannica and there was an unbiased lengthy article on it's history. However, I went on Encyclopedia Britannica's website and found a five line description of Wikipedia before it asked me to subscribe.
Neupedia, established by Jimmy Wales, was the predecessor of Wikipedia and was created to be a scholarly web-based encyclopedia. Since then, Wikipedia has become an interactive website where the general public can write and edit articles on various topics which is why many users of Wikipedia regard Wikipedia "To be refreshingly democratic"(pg 54). It cannot be argued that Wikipedia has proved to be a global broadcast of information which is easy to use and available to all. Dalby talks about the "circle of knowledge"(pg 21) which Wikipedia has become, providing it's services in 265 languages and allowing the writing and critiquing of articles by people around the world.
To the many who have opposed my use of Wikipedia, Dalby's information on how more and more professionals and scholars in the subjects presented in Wikipedia are contributing to the site is a strong rebuttal. Articles are posted on Wikipedia on an hourly bases with hundreds of people adding cited information and statistics while others are editing the information which are questionably false. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is becoming a respectable and notorious online encyclopedia like the tried and true encyclopedias promoted by schools. I would venture to say that if Gaius Plinious Secundus, the famous encyclopedist, were alive today, he would prefer Wikipedia over Encyclopedia Britannica because of the problem of revising and updating encyclopedias which Wikipedia has solved.
Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly, states that he wants America to be a society where"The philosophies of science, of history, of language, of technology and of religion"(pg. 199) are taught to everyone. If the public is charged a sum of money to view information pertaining to these subjects, it is inevitable that people will be less willing obtain those information. As supported by the Nature survey mentioned by Dalby, Wikipedia's free and public source is more attractive to information seekers. And so, Wikipedia can contribute to Neil Postman's efforts to educate America.
My reading and analysis of Andrew Dalby's book is unquestionably biased and I will admit it. On an side note, I went on Wikipedia after my reading to research Encyclopedia Britannica and there was an unbiased lengthy article on it's history. However, I went on Encyclopedia Britannica's website and found a five line description of Wikipedia before it asked me to subscribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment