Gone to Wikipedia in my Mind

After the presentation by Mark Pellegrini I had a much better idea of what Wikipedia is and how it is used. However, the session left me with many questions which then led to other questions.

Firstly, I think the idea of Wikipedia is very innovative. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit gives all users the opportunity to share their knowledge on any subject almost instantanously with anyone in the world. For those who feel the desire to educate others, I can think of no better outlet than Wikipedia. However, an encyclopeida that anyone can edit brings both advantages and risks.

I'm sure there are many briliant people out there who are providing accurate information in their articles, but how do we really know what to beleive? Are any of these articles credible? According to Mark Pellegrini, they are indeed credible because a team of dedicated administrators (including himself) are hard at work making sure the information is accurate and that the site is not vandalized. But, are the Wikipedia administrators able to effectively monitor article content even though they are not themselves experts in the subject field? How do the administrators know what articles give false information? This problem is supposedly also taken care of by a multitude of Wikipedia users who monitor the site and make any needed edits so that in a sense Wikipedia effectively corrects and updates itself. Could the idea of Wikipedia somehow turn into a sort of Epic?
Here's another question..so why does Wikipedia need administrators in the first place? If enough people out there beleive themselves to be qualified enough to correct or make any additons or edits to articles, then why not just let them self-regulate?


Throughout our education we are taught to treat experts as an authority. How do we know if any of the contributors are an authority on anything? Lets compare publishing an article on Wikipeida to publishing an article in a book or written encyclopedia. Presumably in the paper copy of an encyclopedia the source is an expert who is paid to provide accurate information and the article has undergone scrupulous review by an editorial staff. Not the case with Wikipedia. Here no one is paid and virtually anyone can say anything. Mark used the example of the writer who wrote mainly on the topic of British monarchy. Mark mentioned that he was one of the best writers on the site and one who had written the most feature articles. What Mark later told us was that the writer was a 16 year old kid from New Jersey. Now lets face it...how much could a 16 year old kid from NJ know about the British monarchy anyway. The extent of his knowledge probably stems from what he's read in books. So couldnt we find the same information in the regular encyclopedia? Why should I give credit to the 16 year old's article when there are plenty of experts out there who have studied the subject for years? Could this boy possibly bring any new information to the subject?

Overall, I think the idea behind Wikipedia is a creative one. My exposure to Wikipedia has certainly changed my outlook on the source and conveyance of information. Perhaps in time, Wikipedia will evolve as be widely accepted as the encyclopedia of the future!