Wikipedia should not have
succeeded. Wikipedia has potential
flaws in reliability and verifiability.
As the former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica, Robert McHenry, so eloquently stated,
“[Somebody who reads Wikipedia] is rather in the position
of a visitor to a public restroom.
It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise care, or it may
seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled in a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who
used the facilities before him.”
However, because of Wikipedia has the power of mass
collaboration, it has been shown to be quite reliable when compared to other
traditional encyclopedias and information sources that people would be likely
to use if Wikipedia did not exist.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has many non-traditional epistemic virtues,
including power, speed, and fecundity, that have enabled it to defy all odds
and change the outlook on mass online information projects.
Perhaps most amazingly, Wikipedia has shown that the
traditional epistemic roles of experts are being challenged in the modern
online world. People no longer
rely on experts for their information, but are willing to trust (to a certain
degree) something that is potentially written by people who know nothing about
which they speak. Yet, the fast and easy access to information that Wikipedia
provides seems to trump this potential flaw.
Eamon brings up a really interesting point about the epistemology of Wikipedia. It's easy to say that as long as people understand that the information may not all be factually accurate, they will take that information with a grain of salt. Over time, Wikipedia has actually taken steps to edit its information for factual errors more frequently and thoroughly, and I trust the information on Wikipedia more today than I did 5 years ago.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the people who trust Wikipedia may have "different epistemological values than the traditional epistemologist, academic, or pre-online person," as Eamon states, Wikipedia's purpose is not for research papers. One of the most significant changes that the internet has brought has been easy access to information. "Pre-online people" didn't consume information casually the way people can today. There is a lot to be gleaned from learning about(both academic and non-academic) information in a non-academic context. To me, the reason why Wikipedia has succeeded is because people can find quick and easy answers to questions that they either used to know or never knew. In a culture that prioritizes quick and easy access to information, Wikipedia fits very well into the type of knowledge consumption that people want in today's world.