Jimmy Wales Defends Wikipedia

Consensus Better than Credentials

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, readily admits that his site has, and probably always will have, errors, inaccuracies or worse, although the same can be said of any encyclopedia.

But, he adds, the advantage of an online reference source is that it can be amended immediately, whereas traditional encyclopedias have to wait to be reprinted. For the same reason, the information on Wikipedia tends to be more current than that contained in bound editions.

Looking up 'Wikipedia' on Wikipedia we find that critics complain about how the online encyclopedia favors "consensus over credentials in its editorial process." The lowest common denominator, also known as the general public, has never had a particularly good reputation.

Online Collaboration Works Well for Wikipedia

It would certainly not be wise to blindly accept Wiki-wisdom with regards to, for example, what medicine to take or how to heal a troubled relationship, but comparing what we find on Wikipedia with other internet sources, which may or may not be more reliable is always a good test.

There is also the option of standing up and going to our bookshelves for more credentialed references.

If experts in a particular field believe that the facts posted on the internet are wrong, it behooves them to correct it. Concerns about mob rule on the internet or collaborative online encyclopedias are part of an ongoing discussion, but it is always helpful to thoroughly criticize any new technological offspring.

Books originally met with much cynicism among those who distrusted the strange, linear medium that was so different from the sound of the voice.

Wikipedia has recently agreed to require their editors to sign off on postings that are biographical in nature--in response, it seems. to popular figures such as Ted Kennedy, Paul Martin and Miley Cyrus having been subject to false or defamatory statements posted on Wikipedia.

Loving Wikipedia is a Democratic Affair

Since the advent of the written word, books have traditionally been controlled by the elite, the few who could read and write and the even fewer who could afford to pay scribes. Today, the acquisition and dissemination of wisdom is a much more democratic affair.

Governments, churches and other powerful institutions still wield a great deal of influence as gate-keepers of culture, as do the vast corporations that control much of the media. Even the great Google cannot offer an unbiased search of the internet.

Editorial bias, and even outright propaganda, can never be avoided entirely. There will always be a need to be circumspect in the appraisal of the reliability of sources. By sharing what is found on Wikipedia with others, it's possible to find out what they think, which may in turn alter or confirm your own opinions. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide the truth.