wikiwiki world

The world is now open. And it is faster, thanks in part to wikis (wikiwiki is Hawaiin for “quickly”). Quickly indeed. The world of open wikis are extremely fast. Reading through the short history of wikis a person is prone to get travelling sickness from the speed, bumpiness, and fits and starts on the road to communal knowledge heaven. Wikis are collaborative by their very nature (read/write pages) thus making them prime examples of Web 2.0 (though precursors to today’s wikis existed for several years prior to the coining of the term “Web 2.0” by Oreilly). Open wikis (like Wikipedia) go one step further. They not only open up editing to everyone on the planet, they also open up their content for reuse, abuse, and modification by anyone else on the planet. Knowledge is freed from being only the stomping ground of the elite. Knowledge is put at everyone’s fingertips. And knowledge is allowed to flow from everyone’s fingertips. This is “us” analyzing and defining “it”.

Can the wiki be trusted? Can we trust our “lifeline”? When certain academic elites proclaim Wikipedia and other similar open knowledge sources as unacceptable drivle, not worthy of anyone’s time, should we follow their advice and give up on the whole enterprise? If Steven Colbert can “troll” Wikipedia, if vandals and jokesters can deface this public property, should we not call a universal moratorium on academic use of such resources?

If a particular article cannot be trusted, and someone who knows that visits the site and views this article and then tells others about Wikipedia’s untrustworthiness, is not that very person guilty of the sin of omission? If you think an article sucks, rewrite it. If you notice an error, fix it. You are a human. Wikis are for and by humans. If you don’t fix it, but you do complain about it, are you any better then the person who complains about poverty and does nothing to remedy this problem? Millions of people reference Wikipedia every day. It is a service for humanity. Why complain when you can change it? Few things in the world are easier (or quicker) to change. If many in the academic world complain about the unscholarliness of certain articles in a wiki, I think their responsibility to the human race is to share their expertise. Or are they too afraid of the wiki? Or of losing their prestige? Or of seeing humanity grow and learn? If I went into a store and a patron helped me find what I was looking for I would be happy. If a store worker helped me, I would be even happier (because they have the added experience and expertise to find the things I need). Store workers should not complain about patrons helping other patrons. They should help themselves. Scholars should think about doing just this. Help the world, help yourself.

In this way the wiki becomes stronger. The wiki can and should become not only fast and friendly, but factual and fabulous (I couldn’t think of another appropriate “f” word). So long live the wikiwiki world!

Advertisements

One thought on “wikiwiki world

  1. Many arguments about the Wikipedia or other wikis tool, one of which is its reliability and vallidity. When I did my research in another school, I was even directed by my supervisor to look for mor information at the Wikipedia, then I learn a lot of things. However, when I moved here, I was not allowed to cite from this source due to the concern of accuracy and appropriateness. Personally, I don’t think this source differs from the ones that are published in other publications, such as newspaper, magazines, or even the Internet sources. In the case of the peer reviewed articles , those are different I don’t have any objection, but what is the standard of these content? These publications have their editors and proofread process as a quality control, the same as in the Wikipedia, but why Wikipedia is regarded as the inferior source?

    The Wikipedia members are well aware of these issues and trying to come up with these concerns by launching their rules that community membres should strictly follow.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
    This can guarantee some degree of reliability and help to raise the quality of its content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s