SUMMARY --
Don Fallis, from the School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona, explores the many facets of Wikipedia and why it should studied by epistemologists in his paper entitled "Toward a New Epistemology of Wikipedia." He defines epistemology as "the study of what knowledge is and how people can acquire it," (2) and believes that Wikipedia should be studied by others in his field because of the way it draws users to its database of knowledge. "Why are people turning to popular online informational sources instead of traditional, academic sources such as libraries, and how will this impact the future of informational science?" is a question that Fallis and many other epistemologists are faced with now that we have entered the digital age. Some of the pros that Fallis outlines about Wikipedia include it acts as an online community for millions of users to come to one common place for information; information is now accessible in many languages other than English allowing for an international community to be created; due to open source the amount of articles written by anonymous users was created in a timely matter that would've taken years to create if done by hand. The cons that Fallis sees includethe accuracy of information posted, as previously in the past only those who were academically accredited were able to write encyclopedia entries; the lack of control mechanisms that Wikipedia has in order to compensate for its open source authorship; the belief that those who utilize Wikipedia will acquire false beliefs instead of actual knowledge upon consulting Wikipedia. However Fallis concludes that while Wikipedia may have its faults, it is still a fairly reliable source as its power, speed, and functionality surpass any other open source informational database.
INQUIRY--
This article identifies two other open source platforms that have been made in the midst of the Wikipedia craze, that hope to offer alternative options to Wikipedia. They include Citizendium.org which has greater control mechanisms than Wikipedia as posts must be approved and experts are encouraged to submit entries; and Veropedia.com which hosts reliable, stable entries from Wikipedia that have been approved by experts. I had never heard of either of these sites until reading this article, and part of me wonders if they will actually succeed in their mission. Fallis argues that in order for Wikipedia to progress, it must evolve to incorporate more stringent posting parameters. However it is up to the users and readers of Wikipedia to initiate this change, for no matter how hard academics argue to change Wikipedia due to ethics and academic standards, the online community rarely accepts academic integrity reasons as a reason to initiate change. We value our independence and this notion of open source allowing anyone to publish on a database that is accessed by millions of people fuels our love for online anonymity. If more rules are created to guide the validity of online posts, how will this affect how we see Wikipedia?
QUESTIONS --
We have seen in the past how fast information can spread, especially when something goes viral. Due to the open source nature of Wikipedia, do you believe that it could potentially be utilized as a source for propaganda and change?
Who is in charge of determining whether or not something is "accurate"? Do they potentially have the power to create censorship in regards to what information is published, and what is not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments
I believe that it is possible for Wikipedia to become a source of propaganda, but I hope that it never gets to that. I feel that Wikipedia should be at least moderately "policed" to ensure that there is only facts and not bias in the articles. As of now, Wikipedia gives a warning at the top of the article saying some of the information may be slanted, which may prevent propaganda from filtering into the system. Whoever can prove the information is not accurate determines if it is right or wrong. Unfortunately, that means that they could have the power to create censorship, but as of now, there is at least a small system of checks and balances since anyone can edit the information.
Do to Wikipedia's open source nature, it absolutely could be used for propaganda and change. I refer to the Presidential Campaign of Barack Obama. President Obama's campaign generated the most ever by a Presidential candidate, nearly $16 Million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638 ). His contributions were dependent on large donors as much as they were on small donors, thanks to a 21st century phenomenon known as "social networking". Through these social networking sites where individuals can log on and manipulate a space of the internet, Obama was able to generate a powerful voice in support of him, and of course, change. Because Wikipedia is similar to this example of social networking in that users can add content to an existing website, I think it is fully possible to use Wikipedia as a source for propaganda and change.
As far as who determines what is accurate; I believe that is left to the researchers. Anyone who can research a topic and verify it, either through previously published findings or by compiling their own findings, has the authority to declare an item or topics accuracy. These people indeed have the right to declare the inaccuracy of other posted information that does not agree with their findings, however, they do not have the right to censor. Without creating too much of a legal battle here, censorship is a touchy subject and is frankly prohibited in many forms by the first amendment. However, if some information is inaccurate it should absolutely be replaced with accurate information, coming from an ethical standpoint. The ability to provide accurate and reliable information will add to the education of society and create a more knowledgeable "consumer". This will further enhance the evolution of humanity as a whole, through fast and accurate spreading of information, especially as we embark on a century where having access to such information will be the greatest measure of wealth.
I agree that Wikipedia can be both be a source of propaganda and that the information should be monitored for accuracy. Due to the open nature of the site, I feel that propaganda could definitely be posted but is not likely. As I said earlier, I believe that Wikipedia is pretty reliable since it can be edited by an unlimited number of people. Even though the people that post are not restricted by credentials, I believe that people would not post if they did not have accurate information to convey.
I think that the problem with sites like wikipedia are that the general public can edit it, and that they do not need to have real knowledge about the topic to even post anything. Yes, the posts are sometimes reviewed and edited, but if a random person posts information on a web page that people do not update that often, then the knowledge is not that reliable, and people don't receive the most accurate information. That is why I would be very reluctant to take the information on Wikipedia as pure fact. There are a lot of pages that say the web content is inaccurate or insufficient, so it is not that reliable. In general, a big problem with the internet and everyone having access to it is that any crazy person can just post whatever they think and not even need to cite the info.
Post a Comment