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?