1. If I need to do a quick read-up on a subject that I'm not familiar with, Wikipedia is almost always my first stop. Even if I just need a little refresher, it is so much easier to do a quick search and skim on Wikipedia than to find a book, which may provide a more detailed background. However, if I need to really know the subject, or if I'm going to quote anything, I would never rely on Wikipedia. The page that I just checked out was on Helen Thomas. I took a look at that particular page because Thomas spoke at Wartburg a couple years, and I had the privilege of getting to go help pick her up from the airport and go for dinner with her. When I first went to Wikipedia to get a more detailed version of her life, it told me that she was married to Robert Frost. Right then and there, I closed the Wikipedia browser and went to the library to look at other sources. The article now looks to be pretty trustworthy, but it definitely wasn't a few years ago.
2. While I think that Wikipedia has surprised the nation, I don't think it can replace expertise. Until I read Schiff's piece, I only had a faist guess as to how Wikipedia worked. I was largely off base - I never realized how many people put time and effort into the site, nor did I realize that the process is slightly more complex than I thought. To me, Wikipedia is like the common population - mostly good, but with some crazies and criminals mixed in. In other words - while a lot of the material may be reliable and decent, some bad stuff is able to creep in. This can take the form of inaccurate material, poor organization, or lousy editing skills. If I'm going to read up on a certain type of cancer that a family member was diagnosed with, Wikipedia is definitely not going to be my starting point; I'll be heading straight for articles that contain an "M.D." behind the author's name. Too often, Wikipedia serves as the stomping ground for biased points of view and bored people with an internet connection.
3. I think it is easy for people to give up their time if they feel a connection to a site and/or to the people who interact on the site. Communities exist on the web - whether it be a chat room for women with breast cancer or a forum for people who love dalmations. One of the primary needs for a human being is to feel that they belong. Part of feeling that belonging could be as simple as contributing to a Wikipedia article. Let's say it's the holidays, and you're helping decorate your family's house. Not only did your family do this activity together, but at the end of the decorating you are able to look back at the decorations and physically see what your contribution was - I would imagine it's similar to contributing to Wikipedia. People like to be able to see their progress and their contribution. Also, sometimes it's just nice to know that you were able to help out. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia, but I have helped very informally - if I see one of my Facebook "friends" post a question to their status, I usually try to find out that information. It could be something as simple as answering what time an event starts. This week, I started doing a little research on the iPod Touch because I am thinking about getting one. On my Facebook, I asked for feedback. Out of the 8 commenters offering their opinion, I had only spoken to 2 of the people in the past year. One person I hadn't spoken to in 4 years. They each had something to offer and wanted their voice to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment