In defense of Wikipedia, the future of online knowledge forums

Mindy Zhang
Guest Columnist
What began as a project to create a peer-reviewed encyclopedia has now become the grievance of high school educators nation-wide. Last month, the Valor Dictus published an article entitled "Wikipedia use worries teachers, librarians", demonstrating the disapproval of several Robinson educators. Indeed, Wikipedia has in a sense become the forbidden fruit of academic research. Upon entering the Media Center computer lab, one can spot a large poster, plastered immediately above the PC monitors, warning students of Wikipedia's errors. Moreover, this criticism extends beyond the walls of academia. In 2005, Wikipedia Class Action, a website dedicated to filing a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, claimed that the organization needed to pay monetary damages "on behalf of those who have suffered as a result of [its] flawed business model". This website was eventually removed from the Internet in March 2006.
In addition to these skirmishes, allegations of inaccuracy are widespread. But strangely enough, even the most celebrated sources of fact are frequently flawed. A study by the scientific journal Nature investigated the legitimacy of both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, a widely respected information outlet. Through a random sampling of articles, the study discovered 162 errors from Wikipedia and 123 from the Encyclopedia Britannica, according to The Economist. In the end, the report left Britannica red-faced, for the source that claimed "ultimate accuracy" contained numerous flaws. If nothing else, Nature's study demonstrates that although Wikipedia is not perfect, its accuracy is to an extent comparable to that of printed encyclopedias.
The controversy surrounding Wikipedia's accuracy results from a misunderstanding of its nature and purpose. A closer look reveals the website's inherent advantages. First, it encourages active dialogue among members of the intellectual community, an essential component of a free and open society. Many of its articles contain forums for content negotiation, allowing contributors the opportunity to resolve conflicts and improve upon the presented information. The system of dynamic peer review is a balancing factor that acknowledges the importance of ongoing debate. However, this element is unfortunately absent from published databases. Once the information is out, it's final, regardless of new evidence or diverse perspectives. In contrast, Wikipedia's content develops and progresses over time, instigated by its system of participatory democracy.
Second, Wikipedia has been praised for its relative accuracy. A paper published by IBM Research and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab investigated the nature of collaborative websites. Through utilizing a visual tool called "history flow," scientists discovered that Wikipedia's negotiation processes resulted in "effective self-healing capabilities" and short-lived flaws.
Third, Jimmy Wales, the founder of the organization that powers Wikipedia, has established a series of stabilizers to ensure that the site's content does not stray too far from the boundaries of conventional knowledge. The website's constant traffic assures that most mistakes are quickly corrected. Furthermore, warnings of possible bias and statements without citations exist throughout the collection of articles, often providing a link to discussion forums and allowing readers to investigate the controversies for themselves.
Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has embarked on a variety of other projects that are beneficial not only to individuals but also to societies. For instance, the organization has launched Wikiversity, a free, online compilation of learning materials in four different languages. The trial project includes access to community service projects, basic science lab procedures, and suggested readings. By broadening the resource base for instructors worldwide, Wikiversity promotes educational progress and cross-communication.
Despite these advantageous elements, people continue to criticize Wikipedia as an illegitimate source of "authority" because anyone with an Internet connection can modify articles. Well, what is authority? Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in New York University's graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP), argues that authority is a social concept, rather than an inherent characteristic. "A PhD is an authority figure because we all agree that the work that goes into getting a doctorate (itself a social fact) is a legitimate source of authority," says Shirky. However, even articles by renowned intellectuals contain arguments and inherent bias, thus shifting the student's perspective a certain direction before they have a clear grasp on the objective facts. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give authority to a certain person; instead, it aims to expand human knowledge by providing legitimacy to the entire system. In last month's Valor Dictus article, a quote stated that students should pursue "real articles by real people." In fact, the Wiki system epitomizes this ideal. After all, what's more "real" than the open academic debate that Wikipedia offers?
I agree that students should avoid using Wikipedia as their sole source for research papers, especially if they plan on plagiarizing content from the website. Academic convention, school guidelines, and most important, scholarly ethics, forbid these policies. However, rather than abandoning the website as an ineffective resource, students should learn how to utilize Wikipedia to their advantage by distinguishing its proper functions. First, use Wikipedia as a general over Ultimately, Wikipedia is more than merely a source of information; it is a global system that promotes a constant exchange of information. Its purpose is to encourage a dynamic flow of knowledge, an element that is critical to this era of globalization. recommend that you do more research of your own before dismissing the website as a useless tool.

By Stephanie Axelrod |  March 23, 2007; 7:57 AM ET
Previous: Save school some money | Next: Policies leave billions without a future