YES, YES, YES…. we can all agree that Wikipedia is indeed the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of “user-generated content” on the internet but would I trust it over an expert-led encyclopedia? Most definitely NOT!
Do I value wikipedia’s presence and often rely upon it to give me a quick and easy-to-access overview of random topics/subjects when doing general research? YES!
Will I continue to keep using Wikipedia despite arguments that state that it cannot be trusted? It is highly likely that I will. Why? Because like most people, I am lazy, and if I need a quick recap on the history of molecular biology I am likely to just opt to Google it and look at it on Wikipedia as opposed to going to a library and sifting through stacks of dusty scientific encyclopedias.
Sure, I know Wikipedia is largely edited by NON-EXPERTS and therefore is considered a hotbed for erroneous information. However, when I am on a hard deadline and short on time, that is just the chance I am willing to accept and even EMBRACE and I graciously applaud Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales for this on-line creation!
However, NO, I do not in anyway, propose or endorse the credibility of Wikipedia over an expert-led encyclopedia…and frankly, neither does “Jimbo”.
How Wikipedia could be better set-up to provide better accuracy? Well, I honestly think it already does a good job of achieving accuracy that is positively comparable to that of the legendary Encyclopedia Britannica. At least when it comes to say… matters of a scientific nature. I mean, who honestly is going to take the time to misconstrue the quantification of nucleic acids? However, it seems as though a bulk of the negative feedback about Wikipedia’s reliability is exposed when comes to detailing the background of people.
I think Wikipedia’s need for “scholarly oversight” should become paramount when it comes to entries of a biographical nature. While I agree that Wikipedia’s unique set-up of community- editing does indeed make for a balanced forum, I must admit that if I were falsely accused of being the assassinator of John F. Kennedy because some intern thought it was funny to alter my biography on Wikipedia… I would definitely have a less then desirable respect for the on-line encyclopedia.
To put it short, verified online experts should be pre-approved when it comes to entries that are of a personal/biographical nature and everything else should still be contributed like how it is. In my opinion, Wikipedia does exceptionally well at offering the most accurate and convenient information on the breeding behavior of the Mallard Duck when I need it. And that is good enough for me.
