Wikipedia-Megan

1. I have always wanted to try editing something on Wikipedia but I never feel like I know more about something than the people that have already contributed to an article. I don't feel like enough of an "expert" to contribute to an encyclopedia article. Do you?? It amazes me that other people do! However, it's good that you all are more confident than I am because that sharing is what helps Wikipedia thrive. I kind of think, if I don't trust my knowledge to be completely accurate, I should not send it out to the world and have people trust that its accurate. So, because I lack confidence in my own "expertise", my experience with Wikipedia is limited to searching for information.

Specifically, I use Wikipedia as an initial search engine of sorts to help me find some key search terms or broad, basic facts on a topic. I rarely go to wikipedia itself, but I usually google first, and then click on wikipedia links that google provides. I trust wikipedia to point me in the direction of more credible sources by giving me some new search term ideas. The one thing that I think wikipedia may be valuable for is pop culture and current hot debate topics. This is where a wealth of knowledge from diverse people is necessary and useful. However, the "neutrality" clause presents some problems in this realm.

2. I really, really do not think Wikipedia can or will ultimately conquer expertise. Just look at everyone's posts. Not one person has said that they trust it as their sole source of information. However, it scares me that there may be people in the world that do use it as a sole source of information. In this case, is some information better than no information, even if it's not completely accurate?? I honestly don't know. However, it isn't as if scholars and researchers will simply give up research because of wikipedia. If anything, they can gain feedback and inspiration. And at least a few people that know about some current research in their fields of interest will probably be part of the shared economy.

I don't think it's wrong for the general public to disagree or question experts, after all experts once thought the world was flat. However, the experts' views and research need to remain a part of the shared economy to ensure that it doesn't become chaos, and so far it seems like they do. When it comes down to it, is Wikipedia really that much different from how knowledge has always been created?? Every major turning point in knowledge has come from years of questioning, debating, research, arguments, accusations of craziness or insanity etc... The difference with Wikipedia is that all of this is laid out in print, immediately, right in front of our faces- something that is completely unprecedented. This doesn't discount experts' opinions or discoveries, it just lays the entire story of how that knowledge is being constructed right in front of us.

3. According to my interpretation of Bilton, people are more than willing to spend their time perusing and sharing because there is kind of a shared "social agreement" that everyone will peruse and share. This way, no one misses anything important. Each person has their own interests that are important to them, and they will take care of that realm. So, if you have lots of Facebook friends and follow lots of people on Twitter, you just might have all realms covered! If everyone does their part, no one misses out on anything important- and they also avoid being overwhelmed by the unimaginable amount of content out in cyberspace.

I actually spend VERY little time doing this. I'm a rebel member of this shared economy. However, in my defense, I contribute little information but I also consume very little information..so it kind of evens out, right??