Is it Wikid?
A very slightly edited version of my comment in Redbrick:
As mature, responsible, intelligent students, we all know that we shouldn’t believe what we read. We certainly shouldn’t believe what we read on the Internet. There is one website in particular that we should all think twice before consulting – Wikipedia.
For those only armed with a typewriter rather then a computer, Wikipedia styles itself as “the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit”, housing almost 1.5 million articles in English. It is one of the top forty most visited websites in the world, according to the web ranking service Alexa. You do not need to have a registered account to change its information – literally anyone CAN edit it. As an idea, therefore, it is rather cute. It is also rather popular. As proof, here’s a quick unscientific survey:
Hands up all those who have used Wikipedia at any point during college or university? If you have kept your hand down, you must be lying. Everyone I know on my course – History – has used Wikipedia at some point, whether to do background reading for a seminar, or to reference some basic facts in an essay. I’ve done it too, lazy git that I am. Some (unnamed) acquaintance of mine even used Wikipedia as the basis for their revision in the end-of-year exams.
Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information? Certainly not according to university lecturers. In my experience, saying you found out information on Wikipedia is an easier way to derail a seminar than lobbing a hand-grenade into the room. The tutor will rant for fifteen minutes on how the internet is evil, you cannot believe a word anyone says on it, and that Wikipedia is edited by people who wouldn’t know what history was if it kicked them in the groin and then stole their shoes. Or something. The seminar never gets back on track after that, and the last ten minutes is spent discussing something really meaningful and important, like Marmite.
These lecturers’ fears, however, are borne out by recent events. This week fans of the now infamous film “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” changed Kazakhstan’s Wikipedia entry. Borat, the fictional Kazakh journalist played by Sacha Baron Cohen in the film, was installed as president on the page. Kazakhstan’s motto was changed to Borat’s catchphrase “High Five”, and the national anthem opening line was changed to say: “Kazakhstan greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls”, as sung by Borat in the film.
Alterations like this are possibly just harmless fun. The correct information is now safely back in place, and unregistered users are now barred from altering Kazakhstan’s entry. Often, though, the factual errors and distortions on Wikipedia can be more sinister and more serious.
In 2005, for instance, the article on Norway’s Prime Minsister, Jens Stoltenburg, was changed to say, “He sat in prison from 1983-84 for paedophilia on a little boy” (see a screen shot here). He hadn’t. Also, a hoaxer altered the entry for John Seigenthaler Sr, a former journalist and assistant to Robert Kennedy, so it said, “For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.” These lies were on Wikipedia, and also on the websites www.Answers.com and www.Reference.com that use material from wikipedia, from May 29 until they were finally removed on October 5, 2005. In the meantime, his biography was viewed by millions of people who would believe the lies perpetrated by Wikipedia. After all, it must be true. They read it on the Internet! This also means that Wikipedia is being used by surfers whose identity cannot be traced to spread malicious lies and slander about anyone they take offence to, with no fear of legal recrimination. (see an article by Seigenthaler here).
These examples are very extreme, but even the articles on Wikipedia that haven’t been tampered with are usually strewn with factual errors. Nature magazine did a study which compared 42 scientific articles in Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica and examined them for factual errors. Britannica had 2.9 minor errors per article, compared with 3.9 for Wikipedia (although Britannica disputes these findings). Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, said he was “very pleased” with this achievement. I am sure he is, though how pleased one should be with the fact you finished second out of two in a competition is open to debate. The fact remains that Wikipedia is still a less reliable source than Britannica. Even if you accept Nature’s figures as being accurate, which is, as I say, a matter of dispute. Whether you love it, for being the first truly democratic encyclopaedia, or hate it for being a hovel of untruths and misinformation, Wikipedia is here to stay.Even if you agree much of Wikipedia is untrustworthy, the next time someone mentions something (or someone) you have never heard of, your first reference point will be Wikipedia.. Well, I’m not going to stop you. Just remind you that you will never find the Encyclopaedia Britannica list Borat Sagdiyev as President of Kazakhstan.
Cory
