Wikipedia Readings

Anonymous: History of Wikipedia
Anonymous: Criticism of Wikipedia
Miller, Helicher, & Berry: I Want My Wikipedia

I've been following Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and I continue to have mixed feelings about it. Probably my favorite quote in these readings came from the Criticisms article, when Roy Rosenzweig called Wikipedia "surprisingly accurate", damning it with faint praise.

That's a great attitude to have about Wikipedia. I visit the site multiple times on a typical week, and I find it extremely valuable. At the same time, I know enough not to completely trust what I find there. While a number of points in the Criticism article resonated with me, on the whole it felt strained. If Wikipedia were presenting itself as an authoritative, peer-reviewed publication, I'd be lining up to wag my finger too. It isn't, though. The number of times I've found exactly what I was looking for, and the frequency with which I come back, tell me that there's good stuff to be had there.

I was surprised in the History article to learn that it started as an outgrowth of Nupedia, a much more heavily moderated and peer-reviewed reference work. I assumed Wikipedia had grown out of constrained anarchy from the start.

Fundamentally, using a wiki as an authoritative source requires an optimistic view of human nature which I don't share. There are too many losers in the world who like to wreck things, and there are too many people with dangerously over-positive views of their own expertise. But accepting those caveats, a wiki can be a great place for the actually-helpful, actually-knowledgeable people in the world to help others.