Chris Lydgate's "Deconstructing Wikipedia"
Wikipedia: A Blessing or a Curse?
After reading Lydgate's article, it is hard for me to decide if Wikipedia is a gift sent from above or a step towards a global epidemic of stupidity and ignorance!
What is great about a digital-format encyclopedia that can be added to and edited by anybody (other than the fact that entries are CONSTANTLY being added and updated!) is that, as Lydgate says, "writing an encyclopedia is a thrilling, even addictive, intellectual enterprise." This is a good thing because, in this day and age, and I think we can all agree, people are not as concerned about their intellect as they should be!
What is horrible about the site is that it, and Lydgate says it best, "is destined to be the first stop on the information highway for millions of people who need a quick primer on every subject from laetrile to Lady Gaga. What is perhaps disturbing is that it may also be the last stop." With the whole world using the Internet, and Wikipedia being the 6th most visited site on the web, people are taking fallacies as facts, affecting their beliefs and actions...
Breadth, Depth, or Authority?
So, what is the most crucial aspect of an encyclopedia? How extensive its entries are? How many volumes it consists of? Or, is it how many times it has been reviewed by editors to increase its validity as a source?
 |
| Larry Sanger, a Co-Founder of Wikipedia |
READ LARRY SANGER'S "ON THE NEW POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE"
My Thoughts
Authority, in my opinion, should be the main concern of any encyclopedia that wants to be considered a reliable source. For me, an encyclopedia is a place to learn facts about topics. So, when number or length of entries becomes the main goal, facts slowly unravel into fiction. Lydgate writes in his "Deconstructing Wikipedia" article that Sanger's main concern in creating the online-encyclopedia was its authority, and I'm with Sanger. Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe Wikipedia can be useful! I just think that people should be cautious when using it as a source of fact.
As suggested, I use Wikipedia as a down and dirty resource. If I had to engage in mission-critical research, I would seek more legitimate sources, though.
ReplyDelete