Every few months, it seems that some contentious issue or another rages across the Internet until it dies from lack of interest, is beaten down by common sense or a new hot topic displaces it. This month, the hot topic is Wikipedia bashing, judiciously mixed with Wikipedia FUD (FUD: "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt").
I'm tired of the Wikipedia bashing. I think it's time for a constructive discussion that presents the facts of the matter, along with some solutions, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
Here are the facts about Wikipedia:
1. It's a community-supported repository of knowledge.
2. Contributors can be anyone, from topic experts to non-experts, to vandals (though the vandals are relatively scarce). Even you can contribute.
3. The contributors are human, with human strengths -- and human frailties.
4. The content is not refereed, though most contributors try to be as accurate as they can be. There is some oversight in some areas, but contributors are rarely held to account for the accuracy of their contributions. Accuracy is mostly guided by conscience, and most peoples' sense of fair play and a desire to Do The Right Thing.
5. The content, while it may be useful, should not be treated as the End All, Be All, Final Source for any topic. It should be used, as with any research source (even the Encyclopedia Britannica) as one source among many, all of which are cross-checked for agreement and consistency.
6. There are nearly 900,000 articles in English (that's a lot of information)
7. Use common sense when reading Wikipedia.
The rhetoric that contends that Wikipedia isn't Open Source or that it's full of errors, inconsistencies and personal agendas is true -- up to a point. In reality, most of the articles are accurate, some are not, and the vandals are a small minority of the community.
As with most things on the Web, we need to temper our use of Wikipedia with common sense. When you use it, bear in mind that the articles might not be accurate. Read the articles with a discerning eye. Apply the "smell test" (if it smells bad, it probably is bad). Cross-check anything important. Don't use Wikipedia for anything of substance (school papers, legal briefs or newspaper articles) without cross-checking the facts (just as you would for most other research sources).
Now what about solutions? The solution is so obvious, I'm amazed no one's mentioned it yet (at least from what I've seen). Everyone seems to have staked out positions in defense of, or in condemnation of, Wikipedia. Neither side seems to have grasped the real solution.
When I was in the military my first sergeant once asked me a question that, at the time, I thought was deeply profound. It was the first time in my young life I'd heard the question, though it's since become a cliché: "Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?" This firestorm of rhetoric over Wikipedia brings to mind this question. The Wikipedia-bashing and the rhetoric is definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Wikipedia is a new, unique, and I believe, valuable form of media. But it's having growing pains. It needs help, guidance and nurturing, not (destructive) criticism (I'm all for constructive criticism).
Whining about a flat tire won't make it magically patch itself and fill itself with air. Likewise, whining about Wikipedia won't make it any better. The exciting thing, though, is that its very nature allows its problems to be easily remedied. All you have to do is change your perspective a bit. To wit: stop whining, go there and fix what's broken.
Contribute to Wikipedia. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The idea behind Wikipedia is for the community (the world, really) to simply and easily build a public repository of knowledge. If Wikipedia is inaccurate, anyone can fix the inaccuracies -- even you Mr. or Ms. Whiner. If there are problems, they can be repaired.
The power to fix Wikipedia is in everyone’s hands. Whining about the problems doesn't make them go away. If you feel strongly enough to write an article that bashes Wikipedia, perhaps you should put that energy to good use. Find a Wikipedia article that's "broken" and fix it.
Unfortunateley, it takes less energy to point fingers, complain, whine and trash-talk a revolutionary, if flawed, concept than it does to roll up your sleeves, dig in and help improve Wikipedia. Dare I say it? Bashing Wikipedia is the lazy person's way to "fix" the problems. If enough of people whine loudly enough and long enough, someone else will fix the problem -- or maybe Wikipedia will just collapse under the barrage of whining.
If you care enough to complain, maybe you should care enough take some initiative and get involved. As so many of the bashing articles are so quick to point out, the barriers to entry are miniscule. They malign this as a weakness, when, in fact, it's probably Wikipedia's greatest strength. If you have a constructive perspective on the matter, you'll see that this "weakness" could be Wikipedia's salvation -- if only people would quit whining and start editing.
If you don't use Wikipedia, never go there, can't be bothered, but you've jumped on the Wikipedia-bashing band wagon, what good are you? Try being constructive, rather than critical. By climbing aboard the bashing bandwagon your voice is getting lost in the din. Better to get involved and make a difference. Or is that too much like work? Whining is so much less work -- and so much less valuable.
So, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? In this particular matter, with Wikipedia's virtually non-existent barriers to entry, there's really no middle ground.
Part of the problem, or part of the solution: you know which you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment