Wi are who we say wi are


Wi make it.

Wikipedia is a non-profit service that all of us have used to reference one thing or another over during our adult lives.  If a subject or a thing exists in the real world, chances are incredibly strong that Wikipedia provides some level of detail on the matter.  I can’t think of a better resource for broad knowledge.

Wi ALL use it, right?

The strategy Wikipedia has chosen to supply its product, using user provided content, brings a decades old debate.  One can argue the values and shortcomings present between “closed source” and “open source” content contribution.  Because Wikipedia is open source, it benefits from an enormous volume of both actual and potential content contribution.  It is also susceptible to the same key weaknesses contained in any open source structure, namely security and accuracy.

Content is only as good as the culmination of each individual contribution.  Content fact checking is also community based exercise for Wikipedia and while many major errors are caught easily, using information as a resource for “white pages” or other technically demanding documents can range from tricky to ill-advised.

Wi all benefit from truthful information.

So how did Wikipedia become such a trusted brand after so long?  I think the answer has more to do with the source of its identity: Information.  Everyones knows a little about everything, and a few people know a ton about one or two fields of information.  Information has been an important building block for everything we’ve done as a species.  Using peer review in the effort to remove religious, corporate, or other philosophically charged lenses from the scope, Wikipedia is able to focus on what matters most to it; information.  With biases removed, the information organically gravitates to its most true and explainable state.

Wikipedia even chronicles articles about its own reliability.  Hows that for full disclosure?


One thought on “Wi are who we say wi are

  1. kay301

    How do you feel about someone using a wiki as a source? Do you think the fact checking is stringent enough or should there be changes to ensure the smaller harder to spot mistakes are caught moving forward given the popularity of the site? Personal I may use it as a starting point but fact checking it yourself is key to insure credibility.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s