Wikipedia: bane or boon?
Original article:
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia
This article describes how the Australian government has been caught editing articles; basically removing unfavourable edits. It then spurs one to think, how reliable Wikipedia really is, with this free-and-easy system of editing which abusers capitalize on to further their own agendas.
Comments:
Personally, I think that Wikipedia is more of a bane than a boon to society - like what this article demonstrates.
No doubt, it is true that Wikipedia may be targeted by abusers for their own motives. Be it companies discrediting their competitors, lobbyists posting favourable remarks about senators or so (in this case). There is also the occasional case of abusers randomly blanking pages, uploading obscene images or even commenting rudely. And this is precisely one of Wikipedia's flaws - that such a free-for-all platform lends itself readily to a proliferation of vices. True, there are checks and balances such as editors in place - but all it takes for a child to become mentally damaged is just an inappropriate picture he sees before editors can revert, what with the advent of technology these days. And in this light Wikipedia misplaces the trust that parents place in it; that their children would be safe browsing its pages.
Yet I must not be overly critical about the system on this too, for it is the abusers doing the nasty things. But one other feature of Wikipedia that irks me is its IP issue. I have never vandalized a webpage, but whenever I attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, it politely informs me that I have been barred for vandalization. I protest my innocence, and what I get is a sign-up-for-a-free-account! screen so I can now be free of all this dynamic IP squabble. Yet, I feel that this solution of IP blocking on the system's part hampers the convenience of those who have valuable inputs to make; this information deterrence may be costly.
You may then argue that Wikipedia does have its merits too, of creating an online space for knowledge-pursuers. But I challenge, how much of this knowledge is actually reliable? Before you start on the 'citations' part, I question: how much of these citations are really real and also what are their ease of verification? To prove my point I added a new genus of pigs to the Wikipedia site on pigs; it was still there after a week of so. Hence, the checks and balances that Wikipedia implements actually aid in generating a false sense of security which consequently, entices people to head for the website in order to satiate their desire for information. Wikipedia is viewed as a source of reliable information, but the question is, to what extent is it really reliable?
I concede that I may have been biased, for I am not entirely sure of the efficacy of the checks and balances system Wikipedia has in place to combat abusers; instead I am being an armchair critic here. The list of fervent Wikipedians here , together with the unlisted ones, may prove to be effective in deterring abusers, but still not 100% effective - in my opinion. Until 0% error rate can be accomplished, which ironically, is not possible until there is some ubiquitous revitalization of virtues in Man, I would recommend taking Wikipedia with a pinch of salt.
To end off, I have a quote by Einstein:
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia
This article describes how the Australian government has been caught editing articles; basically removing unfavourable edits. It then spurs one to think, how reliable Wikipedia really is, with this free-and-easy system of editing which abusers capitalize on to further their own agendas.
Comments:
Personally, I think that Wikipedia is more of a bane than a boon to society - like what this article demonstrates.
No doubt, it is true that Wikipedia may be targeted by abusers for their own motives. Be it companies discrediting their competitors, lobbyists posting favourable remarks about senators or so (in this case). There is also the occasional case of abusers randomly blanking pages, uploading obscene images or even commenting rudely. And this is precisely one of Wikipedia's flaws - that such a free-for-all platform lends itself readily to a proliferation of vices. True, there are checks and balances such as editors in place - but all it takes for a child to become mentally damaged is just an inappropriate picture he sees before editors can revert, what with the advent of technology these days. And in this light Wikipedia misplaces the trust that parents place in it; that their children would be safe browsing its pages.
Yet I must not be overly critical about the system on this too, for it is the abusers doing the nasty things. But one other feature of Wikipedia that irks me is its IP issue. I have never vandalized a webpage, but whenever I attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, it politely informs me that I have been barred for vandalization. I protest my innocence, and what I get is a sign-up-for-a-free-account! screen so I can now be free of all this dynamic IP squabble. Yet, I feel that this solution of IP blocking on the system's part hampers the convenience of those who have valuable inputs to make; this information deterrence may be costly.
You may then argue that Wikipedia does have its merits too, of creating an online space for knowledge-pursuers. But I challenge, how much of this knowledge is actually reliable? Before you start on the 'citations' part, I question: how much of these citations are really real and also what are their ease of verification? To prove my point I added a new genus of pigs to the Wikipedia site on pigs; it was still there after a week of so. Hence, the checks and balances that Wikipedia implements actually aid in generating a false sense of security which consequently, entices people to head for the website in order to satiate their desire for information. Wikipedia is viewed as a source of reliable information, but the question is, to what extent is it really reliable?
I concede that I may have been biased, for I am not entirely sure of the efficacy of the checks and balances system Wikipedia has in place to combat abusers; instead I am being an armchair critic here. The list of fervent Wikipedians here , together with the unlisted ones, may prove to be effective in deterring abusers, but still not 100% effective - in my opinion. Until 0% error rate can be accomplished, which ironically, is not possible until there is some ubiquitous revitalization of virtues in Man, I would recommend taking Wikipedia with a pinch of salt.
To end off, I have a quote by Einstein:
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
posted by tomatopuree at
8:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home