Wikipedia is amazing. I love it as a generally reliable source of a tremendous amount of information. Sometimes it may not go as in depth as I might desire. Sometimes it may err on the side of being too even-handed. Generally, though, it is fantastic.
Several times I've been in online discussions, cited info in Wikipedia, and been told that I need to cite other references because Wikipedia is unreliable (since anyone can edit it). Ironically, this objection usually comes from people who are not backing up their claims with any citations at all.
Anyway, that arguments sounds good on the surface but fundamentally misunderstands the strength of Wikipedia.
Though Wikipedia is (of course) inferior to primary sources, it is of similar quality to an encyclopedia. The fact that anyone can edit it is actually a strength. Yes, spurious info can creep in (especially for a subject that few people are paying attention to), but there is also an extraordinary community of people who monitor the content, correct errors, make sure the info is balanced and even-handed, etc. This is possible because a large and robust community is in control instead of a small number of information gatekeepers.
In fact, a study by the scientific journal Nature a few years back showed that errors occur in Wikipedia at a rate that is only slightly higher than the Encyclopedia Britannica (link, there are also links there to EB's objections and Nature's response to them).
Wikipedia is not perfect (what source of similar breadth and accessibility is?), but it is certainly trustworthy enough to be useful for silly online discussions.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Comments
Nature's study of Wikipedia
"It is of similar quality to an encyclopedia." "A study by the scientific journal Nature a few years back showed that errors occur in Wikipedia at a rate that is only slightly higher than the Encyclopedia Britannica." It's worth noting that while Wikipedia's error count was similar in number to Britannica's, Britannica's errors were mainly of ommision while Wikipedia's tended to be inaccuracies, and bad inaccuracies at that. See Nature's Flawed Study of Wikipedia's Quality for a full analysis.
"A large and robust community is in control instead of a small number of information gatekeepers." Actually, I disagree here. The community is particularly weak at the moment, and I'd argue that it is controlled by dictators (Jimmy Wales, who's just put himself on a permanent Founder's Seat on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, for example, and many other less prominent bossy people).
Cheers,
Thomas Larsen
Nicholas Carr article
Thanks for the comment Thomas. That article by Nicholas Carr is a good one.
Thanks for posting about me
Thanks for posting about me without using my name. I mean that sincerely. There's not much I hate more than people using their blogs to attack others and I really appreciate that you didn't do that to me.
Despite the fact that I
Despite the fact that I usually get along with everyone in the real world, I do notice that for some reason there is a temptation to be a bit harsh online. Sometimes I slip up, but I'm trying to remind myself to err on the side of being gracious and gentle.