Wikipedia is always cited as the leading example of potentially deceptive information when it comes to research gathering on the web. Anyone can alter it, anyone can post information that is flagrantly misleading and as a result it is said to be a wholly unreliable source. In spite of recent news about who posts what on Wikipedia, there is still much value to be found in terms of what Wikipedia can offer society, or even just the casual user.
In 2005, a study by
The thing is, though, people do know things. While they may not always show it, everyone knows something about something, and someone will always be willing to step up and tell someone that they’re wrong. Birds of a feather flock together – people who are the same will find ways to communicate and interact. It’s the way of the world. The same rules that apply in the real world apply in the virtual one. Wikipedia itself has put in place measures that protect the integrity of the information that is contained within. Vandalism is usually quickly found and reverted, and according to Wikipedia itself “often before users can tell the difference” and issues and occurrences are often parodied, most notably by comedian Stephen Colbert, who edited his Wikipedia entry live on air.
This kind of open source, user-generated community building will always have its detractors. But despite its shortcoming and its flaws (both real and perceived), Wikipedia remains one of the best examples of a website whose success has been wholly as a result of the contributions of its users and the community that has risen around their creation.
5 comments:
Matt, your post discusses some real ways that produsage has converged with culture, such as your example regarding The Colbert Report, and this was interesting to read. Your argument circulates around the success of Wikipedia as an interactive portal, and to a large extent this is true. I would like to expand on the notions of wiki-based blogs and their shortcomings and flaws however, with specific relation to the ‘echo-chamber’ theory.
As sites like Wikipedia provide a framework for multiple authorship from infinite locations, the content actually uploaded onto certain pages should constantly be scrutinised to ensure its validity and relevance. Wikipedia moderators endeavour to achieve this balance, however bias and opinion often creep into articles – an issue which remains at the core of this quasi citizen-journalist/blog-type format.
You commented that “people who are the same will find ways to communicate and interact” has triggered me to think of one of the theories discussed by Barry Saunders in his lecture Cultural Diversity Online on the 20 March, 2008.
The ‘echo-chamber’ effect was described as a reinforcing phenomenon in which individuals gravitate towards like-minded others, merely to support and further similar arguments which align with their own. The concerns with this are that a whole community can potentially be re-circulating the same view without anyone actually challenging what is being said. In some cases this can be beneficial, but Saunders warns of the popularisation of discredited concepts such as 9/11, JFK and moon landing conspiracy-based theories. On an extreme scale one can review the Stormfront White Nationalist Community (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/) – a racialist discussion board for pro-white activists built around racially prejudiced thought.
Wiki style blogs are a fantastic tool for networking and sharing opinions but these examples have shown the problems that widespread diversity brings, especially when communities address extreme views in an ‘echo-chamber’ environment.
Hi Matt...
You make a reasoned argument for the quality of information that Wikipedia upholds. I admit that initially, I suffered inherent scepticism as to the information’s factual accuracy and consequent value but these self-doubts were quickly overcome by KCB202 New Media Technologies – an entire unit dedicated to the benefits of ‘wiki’ communities that both mirrors your opinion of its worth (you may want to restructure next semester’s units Matt, haha) and made me less of a cynic.
While it should not be used solely for academic purposes, Wikipedia’s triumph lies in the ever-pervading provision of data – millions of pages worth of data. It is thus, not so much the academic benefits of Wikipedia, but more so the marriage between its characteristics of high accessibility, ease and moderately accurate facts, and the notion that content is user-led ( and Brun’s concept of the ‘produser’) and ever-evolving, that render it a quality information source. It is crucial to recognize too, that the widespread availability and common relevance of Wikipedia is supported by Ackoff’s theory that the “human mind can be classified” into the categories of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom (http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm). Another point is: where else can you go to find a list of the most unusual deaths (as morbid as it sounds) AND all the drug-related incidents across all three of Australia’s football codes – both of which I required for assignments and have searched in the past month! Focus on Wikipedia’s benefits in fostering online communities and continually evolving publication of sought-after material identify its unique competitive advantage over traditional sources of information like ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’, for example.
Alternatively, the view that information provided on Wikipedia is biased, imbalanced and not accurate will always exist when much of the content is user-produced and user-led. Naturally, instinctively, such varying views will be prominent, emanating from the dynamic and diverse views of the different social classes, genders, and cultures etc. of those that contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia entries. This inescapable notion that content by people reflects the thoughts of people – no matter how ethical, equal or justified they may be – will continue to feature prominently as new media technologies gravitate towards greater levels of online, user-led collaboration.
Great post Matt!
There has been an endless debate about Wikipedia throughout my studies at QUT, so I found this post particularly interesting.
Wikipedia will always be scrutinised as the information is published from unreliable sources such as citizen journalists, bloggers, social networkers and even common internet users.
The web has become a playground for internet users as they have the freedom to register accounts, post information and even alter existing content, as you mentioned in your post “after all, anyone could write it.” Also mentioned in Axel Bruns book, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. “Radical collaboration, in which (in principle) anyone can edit any part of anyone else’s work …one of the great innovations of the open source software movement…” (Bruns, 2008).
I liked the angle you took on this argument. Instead of focusing on the many negatives of Wikipedia, you focused on the successes and how open source software sites, like wikipedia, can benefit a society. I agree with this argument and think that there is still value in the content on Wikipedia, which can help not only a society but also a web user.
The information posted on Wikipedia is for academic purposes which provides endless pages of facts and informative data. I think that people are drawn to sites like Wikipedia for information, not because of its academic content, rather the ease of gathering information. Wikipedia is easy and accessible, therefore people love it.
Wikipedia provides authors with an opportunity to publish new content or alter previous content on web pages. This invites many potential opportunities for information to be bias and imbalanced. Similar to other user-produced or user-led content, various views will always be published on the web to express the diversity in beliefs and cultures. Like citizen journalists, they are untrained journalists who are not forced to write balanced or fair articles. Wikipedia is possibly unreliable and should be scrutinised. Like any other web page, a consumer must always be critical of the content presented. Alternatively, the introduction to user-production has made a significant change to the way people interact and produce information. Therefore Wikipedia is beneficial to society and consumers as it invites participants to become involved and share academic information.
Ps I found the Colbert report very interesting to read.
Matt I actually wanted to comment on your previous post about citizen journalism, but there was no 'leave a comment' option. Maybe that was a deliberate move. Anyway, I found this article and thought it may appeal to you.
http://blogs.theage.com.au/media/archives/2006/10/citizen_journal.html
I especially like the comment about "when was the last time you encountered a 'citizen doctor'?" Maybe you and Mr Farmer can exchange ideas over a nice glass of citizen-journalism-sucks?
Post a Comment