While reading my classmates blogs, I decided to analyze one of Dayo’s entries. In her blog, “Warlord Treatment“, Dayo made interesting points about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is more powerful than we think. It is an aggregation of enormous, varied amounts of information, and it contains so many opinions, stories, and arguments that it is intimidating—yet how can something so big be so fragile?
There are discussions about the validity of Wikipedia everywhere: college lecture halls, water coolers in offices, and probably even in the White House. It is a controversial venue, ironically, for controversial issues.
One fundamental question is who has the right to post information on Wikipedia? PhD’s? Those over the age of 35? Home owners? There is no general way to define peoples’ abilities to convey information, and no way to reign in their opinions. In short, Wikipedia is enormous but held up by a shaky foundation.
The post makes some valid points, however, in acknowledging its vast advantages while admitting to its faults. Dayo admits laughing at some ridiculous entries in Wikipedia for their humor just as she admits cringing at racist entries in the “real” encyclopedia. Not to say that Wikipedia is funny while Encyclopedia Britanica is racist, but generally her reactions are similar to others of her generation. The reason for this, as she rightly states, is the ability of Wikipedia to change.
The benefit of an online information source is that it can adjust quickly and efficiently in the matter of a click. The book, on the other hand, requires time and money for publication. Wikipedia is hardly perfect, but it is reflective of a broad range of opinions, interpretations, and voices. Some are factually incorrect, and others are wildly biased, but still others provide simply useful and fast information.
Is Wikipedia a catalyst for the Armageddon? I don’t know. I’m just grateful that I can familiarize myself with the history of, well, anything, without making the trip to the library.
