Font of All Knowledge
The ultimate source - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia
by blogSpotter
There is a highly regarded book of collected wisdom which illuminates our world and helps in our intellectual pursuits. It has the combined wisdom of scribes and prophets throughout the developed world. I speak not of the Bible, but rather Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the free Internet encyclopedia which gives us 4.1 million English language articles and has 100,000 contributors. Wikipedia is also available in @ 284 other languages. It is free to use, and is funded though donations. Article content is unpaid, and delivered primarily as a "labor of love" by interested academicians. Who would give so freely of their time? Unmarried males, age 30-50 with some level of college education are the primary authors – according to statistics. (Why does Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory spring to mind?).
Wikipedia has incurred the wrath of commercial encyclopedias like Britannica – big surprise. It has been variously described as amoral, flawed and irresponsible by various other parties. Usually the critics are people who stand to lose speaking engagements, writing assignments and license fees as the general public flocks to Wikipedia, aka, the Font of All Knowledge.
It is true that Wikipedia has some inaccuracies, bias and inconsistent quality. Nature magazine found that these deficiencies also exist in other "unimpeachable" commercial tomes – and at the same rate of error. I myself found an inaccuracy when researching the RMS Titanic – one article quoted two different death statistics in different paragraphs. I figure there were different authors at work and they didn’t qualify their numbers unambiguously. But overall, I find the Wikipedia articles to be accurate and credible. If I were going to bet the farm or do delicate surgery based on research results, I’d probably look more deeply into expert testimony. If I’m shooting the breeze and want to know the date of Lincoln’s passing, Wikipedia fills the bill.
Now, Wikipedia serves up some more offerings that Compton’s and Encyclopedia utterly fail to deliver.. it has articles about commercial products (e.g., iPod Touch, Shelby Mustang) as well as topics that would be considered "improper" or "inane" like belly button lint. Wikipedia has a main page which beckons you with new and various topics of the day – a "nerdvana" for aspiring Jeopardy contestants. Wikipedia drives home a couple of very important ideas:
* Learning is a happy excursion, not a dull assignment.
* Academic topics can cross all boundaries and need not pass a censor’s standard for appropriateness.
Whatever silly thought or mind blip enters your head – it is likely to have a Wikipedia entry. Someone has subjected your silly notion to a thoughtful and intellectual, albeit nerdy, expansion of details, history and related links. So Wikipedia is sublime and sometimes ridiculous – it is a learning expedition for the likes of you, me and anyone else who loves to indulge in thought. We indulge not necessarily because a term paper is due or a job requires it. We indulge because we have active, curious minds and we care about knowledge in general.
Addendum -- 3/8/2013
I was going to leave a comment but as the blog author, thought it would be better to just add to the text. Traditional, published encyclopedias have been known for center-right political orientation and total avoidance of controversial or difficult topics. Wikipedia recognizes that the world of knowledge doesn't fit readily into a rectangular shirt box -- some topics very worthy of discussion give off the angry hum of opposing viewpoints. Such things as abortion, pornography and animal rights (and many, many other topics) fall into this category. Wikipedia encourages these debates with discussion areas. It also mitigates the overstep of opinionated authors by allowing dissent. Such articles will say "The neutrality of this section is disputed" and members will arbitrate how to present the material.
Wikipedia isn't exactly the firebrand, left-wing tool that some have suggested. Wikipedia is more center-center than center-left.. it is much more informative than provocative. Wikipedia is also not a "slam book" -- it avoids gossip and unsubstantiated smears against individuals. On the whole, Wikipedia is a reasonable source of data and a great induction into the thought world -- a place that can be untidy, scary and invigorating all at the same time.
Wikipedia has incurred the wrath of commercial encyclopedias like Britannica – big surprise. It has been variously described as amoral, flawed and irresponsible by various other parties. Usually the critics are people who stand to lose speaking engagements, writing assignments and license fees as the general public flocks to Wikipedia, aka, the Font of All Knowledge.
It is true that Wikipedia has some inaccuracies, bias and inconsistent quality. Nature magazine found that these deficiencies also exist in other "unimpeachable" commercial tomes – and at the same rate of error. I myself found an inaccuracy when researching the RMS Titanic – one article quoted two different death statistics in different paragraphs. I figure there were different authors at work and they didn’t qualify their numbers unambiguously. But overall, I find the Wikipedia articles to be accurate and credible. If I were going to bet the farm or do delicate surgery based on research results, I’d probably look more deeply into expert testimony. If I’m shooting the breeze and want to know the date of Lincoln’s passing, Wikipedia fills the bill.
Now, Wikipedia serves up some more offerings that Compton’s and Encyclopedia utterly fail to deliver.. it has articles about commercial products (e.g., iPod Touch, Shelby Mustang) as well as topics that would be considered "improper" or "inane" like belly button lint. Wikipedia has a main page which beckons you with new and various topics of the day – a "nerdvana" for aspiring Jeopardy contestants. Wikipedia drives home a couple of very important ideas:
* Learning is a happy excursion, not a dull assignment.
* Academic topics can cross all boundaries and need not pass a censor’s standard for appropriateness.
Whatever silly thought or mind blip enters your head – it is likely to have a Wikipedia entry. Someone has subjected your silly notion to a thoughtful and intellectual, albeit nerdy, expansion of details, history and related links. So Wikipedia is sublime and sometimes ridiculous – it is a learning expedition for the likes of you, me and anyone else who loves to indulge in thought. We indulge not necessarily because a term paper is due or a job requires it. We indulge because we have active, curious minds and we care about knowledge in general.
Addendum -- 3/8/2013
I was going to leave a comment but as the blog author, thought it would be better to just add to the text. Traditional, published encyclopedias have been known for center-right political orientation and total avoidance of controversial or difficult topics. Wikipedia recognizes that the world of knowledge doesn't fit readily into a rectangular shirt box -- some topics very worthy of discussion give off the angry hum of opposing viewpoints. Such things as abortion, pornography and animal rights (and many, many other topics) fall into this category. Wikipedia encourages these debates with discussion areas. It also mitigates the overstep of opinionated authors by allowing dissent. Such articles will say "The neutrality of this section is disputed" and members will arbitrate how to present the material.
Wikipedia isn't exactly the firebrand, left-wing tool that some have suggested. Wikipedia is more center-center than center-left.. it is much more informative than provocative. Wikipedia is also not a "slam book" -- it avoids gossip and unsubstantiated smears against individuals. On the whole, Wikipedia is a reasonable source of data and a great induction into the thought world -- a place that can be untidy, scary and invigorating all at the same time.
© 2013 blogSpotter
Labels: Retrospective, Society
posted by blogspotter @ 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home