THE RELIABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA: A Closer Look

Posted:  1 Jun 13

WE ARE GROWING IN OUR DEPENDENCY 

ON WIKIPEDIA -- the online encyclopedia

Are we wise to allow ourselves this luxury? YES!

Purpose

To increase public perspective on the quality of this popular, crucial online informational resource -- so that it can be used more confidently and advantageously.

1.  OVERVIEW

More and more, we are consulting Wikipedia to find answers to many of the questions that pop up during the day. But, how can we be sure that the information is sound? The short answer is that, if the matter under investigation is critical, it is prudent to consult a number of references. But, if there is no opportunity for that, can we reasonably count on Wikipedia? I think the short answer is a resounding "yes."

Never before has our entire species been able to collaborate, so easily, on the maturation of the great Human Knowledge Base (HKB) -- and I think that's grand!

Here's what I've found, so far.

2.  A LAYMAN'S ANALYSIS

1.  THE POWER OF COLLECTIVE WISDOM:  It's pretty well known that Wikipedia can be modified by anyone -- and that is the beauty of it -- for there is a collective genius comprised of the fragments of wisdom each of us contain and are developing.

Everyone has something to bring to the table.  And, Wikipedia is proving this, convincingly.

2.  THE "PURITY" OF THE INFORMATION:  However, not everything we bring to the table is likely to be wholesome.  Knowing this truth can certainly shake our confidence.  What's to say that a vandal couldn't go in and corrupt the information?  And the answer, I think, is brilliant -- resting on the integrity of the human species, as a whole -- the quality of the Wikipedia sytem -- and the prompt intervention of the better informed.

3.  HOW IT'S DONE:  Wikipedia is being regularly consulted and supported by nearly a billion souls.  Virtually every topic is watched by people who are interested in the topic and who possess expertise there.  Much like Facebook, they can be (and usually are) alerted when anyone makes a change -- and a review process tends to begin at once (with amazing speed) -- and false or erroneous information tends to be intercepted before it ever reaches our eyes.

And, before the incoming information is even accepted, there is a review process.  In other words, the collective wisdom comes into play and does its work, without undue delay.

3.  CONCLUSION

THEREFORE:  Is it 100% reliable?  Few things achieve that distinction. One thing is certain -- the matter is treated seriously by these successful stewards of the HKB -- "the Wikipedians."  I have explored the question and, thus far, am content that this is a tool that we can rely on.  How much we should rely on it depends on our particular circumstances -- what we are trying to do and why.  I, for one, after this investigation, am even more content with this superb contribution to the common good.

4.  HERE IS THEIR OWN EXPLANATION

I think you will find the following to be reassuring. I certainly do. Pay special note to how Wikipedia stands in comparison with the mighty Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

5.  A FAVORITE PARABLE -- the story of the line

Talking about the power of collective wisdom -- or teamwork applied:

• There was a professor who was expounding to her class on teamwork.
• She drew a line on the chalkboard and asked each person to guess the exact length of the line.   
• Some guessed too high, some too low -- no one hit it exactly.
• Then she AVERAGED their answers and came out with the EXACT ANSWER.  

It took the combination of mental power, pulling this way and that, to produce the desirable result.

• Can we repeat this experiment and get the same result?  
• Try it.  
• However, the main point is the main point.

David Nelson