The Ultimate Encyclopedia – Written by Citizens for Citizens But Rejected by Educational Institutions
May 12, 2009
As with the introduction of the printing press, television and the internet, some members of society have once again worked themselves into a tether over the introduction of web 2.0 and social software phenomenon it has brought about. One of the main areas of current concern is the globally recognized website, Wikipedia. Famous for using the new produsage model which favors a continuing process of production, recognition of produsage as common property, open participation, communal evaluation and heterarchical governance, Wikipedia has been named as the most successful online encyclopedia. Unlike traditional encyclopedias which endeavor to present the current state of accepted knowledge, Wikipedia presents current representations of knowledge based on the perspectives of contributors (Bruns 2008, 114). However, this does not mean that contributors are able to publish anything they want. Wikipedia content must adhere to three principles. These principles state that the author must have a neutral point of view, the article must be verifiable and no original, unpublished research may be used (Bruns 2008, 113). Wikipedia content is further governed by both dedicated Wikipedians who monitor the contributions of other users and by automated watch-bots which are designed to revert disruptive changes and are placed on pages that suffer from constant vandalism.
When compared to traditional encyclopedias, a defining characteristic of Wikipedia is the inclusion of a very broad range of topics. Due to vast array of contributors who volunteer their knowledge in order to enhance Wikipedia, the website is simply able to produce large amounts of information on various subjects as oppose to traditional encyclopedias that are written by paid experts. As expressed by a Wikipedia user, the ability to search Wikipedia for information concerning unusual or non-traditional topics is extremely convenient (Macaulay 2006) and is a feature that traditional encyclopedias do not have. Therefore, due to its extensive, ever-changing and ever-growing database, Wikipedia could actually be considered as the encyclopedia of everything, society’s ultimate encyclopedia.
However, there are still many concerns about Wikipedia which cannot be dismissed. As mentioned above Wikipedia presents only representations of knowledge that must be verifiable, but not strictly truthful (Wikipedia 2009). Although the quality of an article undergoes communal evaluation and is increased over time, the potential for people to cite unreliable sources and therefore publish unreliable information is quite high. Often, education professionals are seen to fear Wikipedia as it is an unknown quantity and is not considered to have the same authority as traditional encyclopedias (Bruns 2008, 131). As a result students are told not to use Wikipedia and to instead search for more reliable sources. It is certainly interesting to note that although society has entered the new media age, educational institutions, particularly schools, are still reluctant to encourage students to use new media let alone teach the skills required to use it. In one of his articles, Henry Jenkins (2007) suggests that students should in fact be taught not only about new media, but also to actually contribute to new media and to the produsage environment. By including new media in the school curriculum students will learn skills that will be of great necessity when they enter the workforce. It is time for educational institutions to stop lingering on tradition and to educate students on what is current and what will ultimately have an impact on their career.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Jenkins, H. 2007. What Wikipedia can teach us About the New Media Literacies. http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/06/what_wikipedia_can_teach_us_ab_1.html (accessed May 8, 2009).
Macaulay, J. 2006. Wikipedia and How it Reflects our Changing Culture. http://scruffynerf.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/wikipedia-how-it-reflects-our-changing-culture/ (accessed May 8, 2009).
Wikipedia: Verifiability. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (accessed May 8, 2009).
I have to say that I totally agree with what you are saying about Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be a resource that is definitely very valuable to my professional, educational and personal life. Like the Wikipedia user you quoted in your blog I find that the broad topics covered by Wikipedia is very convenient especially on new events and topics such as the swine flu or the most recent news on up-and-coming books that I’m interested in. Not only so, I find the user-friendly language that is often used on Wikipedia much easier to understand than the technical jargon which is often found in professional and academic resources. This is beneficial although Wikipedia is not seen as reliable, as you mentioned, it provides for a good starting place to get a general idea about a topic before doing further research. I also agree with what you said about teaching students about new media and encouraging them to contribute. With more people contributing to the produsage environment, collective intelligence could then be utilised. As Axel Bruns explains, collective intelligence is when the community becomes smarter than each individual as each contributor builds upon the last contributor’s understanding. As more people enter and contribute to the produsage environment the more benefits the community will reap as more topics could then be covered and articles could then be further refined and improved. This has been an excellent read!