Essay:Wikis and Information
The age of information on the Internet has brought a new creation: a wiki. The wiki is a tool that one uses to insert information and create a database.
To create a database that is a summary of all human knowledge was the goal of Wikipedia, the most prominent wiki that is probably synonomous to the word "wiki" for most. With the emergence of Wikipedia as a source of information, other wikis have emerged trying to emulate Wikipedia. Among these include Conservapedia (which this site clearly is against), A Storehouse of Knowledge, and Citizendium. Also, parody wiki encyclopedias not good for information but are great entertainment include Illogicopedia, Uncyclopedia, and Conservapedia (a stealth parody). Can the wiki, with its ability to let the public at large freely edit, be a reliable source for serious research? Let's look at the facts on each wiki encyclopedia.
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia
The most famous wiki of all time has to be Wikipedia. Founded by Mr. Jimmy Wales and co., it has been referred to by many as a great starting point for research. In most cases, it can be very valuable for this purpose. But Wikipedia is not written by scholars, but by everyday people who may or may not have credentials in the area in which they write. With 3 million and more articles, Wikipedia is definitely the largest encyclopedia. But there are some great problems with Wikipedia. With a lack of documentation in the articles, they may not be trusted. This is why many schools are not allowing the use of Wikipedia, which many high school students plagiarize on a regular basis. And a bias? I would agree that Wikipedia has a slight liberal bias, but not this huge anti-American, anti-Christian thing that Conservapedia advocates. But this is tolerable to most. Off to a bit irrelevant point, it is also a great tool for Jimbo to break up with his various girlfriends. But back on topic, Wikipedia can be valuable, but only how it was intended: as a starting point to research, not an ending point. And that's how it is to be used.
[edit] Conservapedia
Schlafly and co. founded this wiki as a response to a slight liberal bias in Wikipedia in which they exaggerate to be a ruthless anti-American Christian bias. CP users claim this to be an excellent encyclopedia, or more modestly in cases "an excellent resource for students", which explains why many articles at CP are written for middle schoolers (or at least seem to be). It takes a point of view as a fundamentalist Christian Americentric conservative website, which is fine. What is not fine is the fact that it sells itself as a real encyclopedia, rather than a conservative blog, which would seem more reasonable. Conservapedia is not and never will be an encyclopedia. In addition to the articles on politics, religion and in some cases history (history articles are very short and incomplete even when compared to Wikipedia, and are very prone to inaccuracies. Take this from someone who studies history quite a bit.), there are courses which Mr. Schlafly teaches which quite contrary to popular belief, do not prepare a student for any college prep test due to their very political nature and inaccuracies and incompleteness. Andy taught teenagers for some time and indoctrinated them, and attempts to do this on his encyclopedia blog. Fine, but don't sell it as college prep practice. CP is also full of essays the most conservative contribute and are also nonencyclopedic. Fine, but quit trying to sell it as an encyclopedia. (I know RW has essays, and I'm writing one now, but it doesn't sell itself as an encyclopedia.) And its hostility to new contributors who don't believe as the admins do, and limit points of view, and get banned for little or no good reason, well, I may address that in another essay. One more point, their "science" articles only point out young-earth creation science, and are of little value to the scientific community. My recommendation: Conservapedia should never be used as a resource in a scholary report or research, or any research for that matter.
[edit] Citizendium
A wiki written by the general public gently guided by experts is the promise of Citizendium, a Wikipedia fork that ended up going its own way. Founded by WP cofounder Larry Sanger, it promised to create a new database that is more credible than Wikipedia. Well, it has few articles and experts, and losing contributors. Unlike Wikipedia with its open editing and pseudonym option, CZ requires all editors to give real names and personal information, credentials etc. 10,000 and something stubs, a few complete and "confirmed" articles, really doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment.
[edit] Parody Wikis
Well, they are not informative, but they do have interesting stuff.
[edit] Conclusion
Wikis do allow the public to insert information, and vandals to wreck the pages. Wikipedia has measures that are effective most of the time to prevent blatant vandalism. But, wikis should not be relied on for a sole source of information, though many do rely on Wikipedia. It is absurd to think that many school students would use it as a bible for their school research, but they do quite often. Encyclopedias in general should never be a primary source in a paper past middle school, even accurate, well-sourced encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. But many schools do allow use of paper encyclopedias, while disallowing Wikipedia or other such wiki sources. My conclusion is that Wikipedia and other wiki sources should be used solely as a starting point for research and not as an online bible.