The Internet is like having all the books of the world, from ancient times till our era, in the vicinity of our homes. The plethora of knowledge is just limitless.
Millions of websites exists in the information super-highway, offering us, the travellers as it were in this highway, immeasurable choices.
However, not all are factual or accurate. George Bernard Shaw once said “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” One such case concerns the renowned Wikipedia, a global online encyclopaedia.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Hickman & Roberts (2006), through their investigation on Wikipedia, made several statements that would be worth one’s while to contemplate on. Firstly, they asserted that “questions of accuracy” (Hickman & Roberts 2006) have been persistently lingering around Wikipedia since its conception.
(Source: Youtube)
The Kennedy Error
(Source: Nashville Post)
(Source: CIA)
The inherent problem with this is that anyone and everyone who visits Wikipedia can add, subtract or alter any information which they deem necessary. Hickman & Roberts (2006) said this renders the contents of Wikipedia “inaccurate or offensive” as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.
Even the website agrees to this and classified these problems as ‘ “systematic bias, difficulty of fact checking, use of dubious sources, exposure to vandals, privacy concerns, quality concerns, fanatics and special interests, and censorship”’(Hickman & Roberts 2006).
Revolution Misconception
Another case where the crime of inaccuracy or rather vagueness of content occurred was with the entry on the Russian Revolution. Orlando Figes, a history professor at the University of London, said the Russian Revolution was not a ‘“political movement”’ as claimed by Wikipedia but rather ‘“a series of movements and chaotic social disturbances”’ (Hickman & Roberts 2006).
It would not be an exaggeration to say that a false implication had been committed. According to Pearsall (1997, p.68), when one makes a false implication, ‘you are actually telling the truth but in a way that leads readers to the wrong conclusion.’
A junior high-school student who intends to research on the Russian Revolution using Wikipedia would of course be misled into believing that the Revolution was a political movement.
Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy
Blicq & Moretto (2004, p.21) said that ‘nothing annoys readers more than to discover that they have been given inaccurate information …’
This is because audiences like myself search the World Wide Web for credible and substantial information and not something that might have been edited just because someone thought that it would be funny.
For example, the misinformation of John Seigenthaler Sr. was actually a prank committed by Brian Chase. According to The New York Times (Seelye 2005), Brian Chase was ‘trying to shock a colleague with a joke …’
Below is an interesting video about how the media perceive Wikipedia.
(Source: Youtube)
Wikipedia vs. Britannica
Notwithstanding, it would be fallible to conclude that Wikipedia is the only online encyclopaedia with errors. According to a research conducted by Nature:
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, around three’ (Cauchi 2005).
Although the margin of errors between Wikipedia and Britannica are close, the reality is still prevalent in that everyone has the ability to edit the contents in Wikipedia or post false entries!
Vis-à-vis the revelation done by Nature, Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia said, ‘“It's good that people see that there are a lot of errors everywhere."’ (Terdiman 2005).
As a high-school student, I relied on Wikipedia for almost all of my research. Nevertheless, with this research that I have done, my trust towards the credibility of Wikipedia seems to be waning gradually.
Of course, I will still utilise Wikipedia to gain primordial information about something but I would not entirely rely on them.
The credibility and authority of the information made available by Wikipedia seems to be resting at the edge of a knife! Or at least that is how I reckon it to be.
For additional readings on the inaccuracies surrounding Wikipedia, kindly follow the link provided:
References
Blicq, R & Moretto, L 2004, Technically-Write!, 6th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA.
Cauchi, S 2005, Online encyclopedias put to the test, The Age, viewed 10 June 2008, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html>.
Hickman, M & Roberts, G 2006, Wikipedia under the microscope over accuracy, The Independent, viewed 10 June 2008, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/wikipedia-under-the-microscope-over-accuracy-466444.html>.
Pearsall, TE 1997, The Elements of Technical Writing, Allyn & Bacon, USA.
Seelye, KQ 2005, A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank, The New York Times, viewed 11 June 2008, <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html>.
Terdiman, D 2005, Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica, CNET News, viewed 10 June 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=news.1>.
No comments:
Post a Comment