Response #9: The Wikipedia Phenomenon

Should we trust Wikipedia or an expert-led encyclopedia more? How could Wikipedia be better set-up to better provide accuracy? Should it be open to everyone or just verified “experts”?

I think the question should be, if we blindly believe in Wikipedia? To which I say that depends on the circumstances. For me it is a reliable source till certain point, but you have to discern and filter the information.

Watch this video, he is right:

For me the concept of the wiki is a good way of collective unity, unite the knowledge of people around the world. What better knowledge than what we have? We could say that each person is an expert in certain things, so why not contribute and create a collaborative encyclopedia?

It has been proven that an expert-encyclopedia may have a substantial number of errors like Wikipedia, the only difference being that Wikipedia we can edit and correct. In an expert-encyclopedia would have to await the next edition to correct it. So from that standpoint I consider more reliable Wikipedia. Even when doing searches on Wikipedia, I must remember that it is not entirely correct. I would recommend Wikipedia as a way to start your research, to lay your foundation on the subject.

Everyone or just Verified “Experts”?

If you have the knowledge, use it! I think what they are doing right now is working. Leave it open to everybody worked. When it comes to more sensitive or controversial topics, using the semi-protected or “flagged revisions” that only can edit the verified-experts. The quality and quantity of their collaborations makes them earned the trust of Wikipedia to write on certain subjects, that’s a valuable point.

All over the world Wikipedia is used as an informational tool that dominates the internet. So, we can continue using it, we must continue using it, but we must always take into account what it is … a collaborative effort, where there may be errors but also corrections.