There's been some controversy over Wikipedia lately, and it takes the form of a lawsuit against the online encyclopedia. Someone has started a website at WikipediaClassAction.org, which plans to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia, on the basis that there is harmful and inaccurate information in some Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia is well known for being an open encyclopedia, i.e. anyone can edit the articles. The idea is that for any given topic, someone in the world has the knowledge to be able to write about it. If this person posts some erroneous information (either intentionally or not), then someone else in the world will have the knowledge to correct it. In my experience, this model works, and Wikipedia has become one of my favourite sources of information. If something in an article seems controversial or somehow "not right" to me, a quick look at the discussion page for the article will show that the community is aware of the potential issues and is working to amend the entry.
There is no doubt that Wikipedia will never be 100% accurate at all times. The fact that it's a collaborative effort necessarily implies that any information posted can evolve. Also, differences between one author's perspective of a certain topic and another's are bound to arise. The point is that it's open for everyone to discuss and decide on an article's final content cooperatively. I believe that when it comes to information, a large open community has more to offer than a single "authoritative" source, even if it means the occasional error or bug.
This lawsuit was sparked in part by an incident involving the biographical entry of John Seigenthaler Sr. Someone posted false information (apparently as a joke) implying that Seigenthaler had been involved in JFK's assassination. The lawsuit claims that because of Wikipedia's open nature, such misinformation is more likely to be spread. The ironic part of it is, as soon as the story came out, it was loudly discussed, and much attention was brought to that particular article. It has since been fixed, and in fact, there is now another article explaining the whole situation. Doesn't this show the openness of the system actually serves to increase its accuracy? People will make false statements, through all kinds of media, whether they are open to the public or not. What's worse, a self-correcting system such as Wikipedia, where information becomes fact only when agreed upon by everyone? Or supposedly authorative sources (e.g. the news media) which routinely present opinions as fact?
I fear that this lawsuit might actually have some success. They'll never be able to shut down Wikipedia (at least, I certainly hope not), but they might succeed in forcing them to do something stupid like dropping the "pedia" from the name, just because it's "misleading." No matter what happens, I'll continue to use and support the Wikipedia project.
Wikipedia is well known for being an open encyclopedia, i.e. anyone can edit the articles. The idea is that for any given topic, someone in the world has the knowledge to be able to write about it. If this person posts some erroneous information (either intentionally or not), then someone else in the world will have the knowledge to correct it. In my experience, this model works, and Wikipedia has become one of my favourite sources of information. If something in an article seems controversial or somehow "not right" to me, a quick look at the discussion page for the article will show that the community is aware of the potential issues and is working to amend the entry.
There is no doubt that Wikipedia will never be 100% accurate at all times. The fact that it's a collaborative effort necessarily implies that any information posted can evolve. Also, differences between one author's perspective of a certain topic and another's are bound to arise. The point is that it's open for everyone to discuss and decide on an article's final content cooperatively. I believe that when it comes to information, a large open community has more to offer than a single "authoritative" source, even if it means the occasional error or bug.
This lawsuit was sparked in part by an incident involving the biographical entry of John Seigenthaler Sr. Someone posted false information (apparently as a joke) implying that Seigenthaler had been involved in JFK's assassination. The lawsuit claims that because of Wikipedia's open nature, such misinformation is more likely to be spread. The ironic part of it is, as soon as the story came out, it was loudly discussed, and much attention was brought to that particular article. It has since been fixed, and in fact, there is now another article explaining the whole situation. Doesn't this show the openness of the system actually serves to increase its accuracy? People will make false statements, through all kinds of media, whether they are open to the public or not. What's worse, a self-correcting system such as Wikipedia, where information becomes fact only when agreed upon by everyone? Or supposedly authorative sources (e.g. the news media) which routinely present opinions as fact?
I fear that this lawsuit might actually have some success. They'll never be able to shut down Wikipedia (at least, I certainly hope not), but they might succeed in forcing them to do something stupid like dropping the "pedia" from the name, just because it's "misleading." No matter what happens, I'll continue to use and support the Wikipedia project.
Ah yes, two things wrong with society all in one lawsuit:
ReplyDelete1) Instead of getting a job, wasting taxpayers money by trying to make a quick (million) bucks off of a lawsuit
2) Pissing all over free speech because people don't like its contents. If you don't think Wikipedia is worth it, then don't use it.