As you may have noticed, I like to provide a lot of links in my posts. More often than not, I link to Wikipedia pages. The reason I like to use links is twofold. First, I want to provide references for my facts where applicable. Second, I like to provide you, the reader, with additional opportunities for education. Remember, one of our primary missions here is to educate. Once educated, you will be prepared to stop taking the soma!
But, why Wikipedia? And, what does that have to do anything in these crazy times?
The concept of the encyclopedia has been around for a long, long time. I was tempted to do more thorough research and tell you all about it. But, instead, you can read the Wikipedia link here. The basic evolution of the encyclopedia makes sense. Early works were compiled and edited by primarily one person. This led to a system of more contributors with a system of bureaucracy for the purposes of editing, quality control, etc. This became more and more advanced until the forerunners of today's Wikipedia came along. This evolution led to a system of authorship and editing from many authors with little or no bureaucratic oversight.
Encyclopedia Britannica is arguably the best in class from the more traditional standpoint. But, Wikipedia blows it away in terms of online use. In fact, my quick research using Alexa leads me to the conclusion that Wikipedia is used close to ten times more frequently than all other online encyclopedias combined. Wikipedia has had an average reach (percentage of online users who visit the site) of over 8.5% over the last three months. Britannica averages about 0.5% for reach. Microsoft's Encarta makes up approximately 1% of all visits to msn.com, which gives it (at best) an average reach of 0.2% by my estimates. Additionally, the average visitor to Wikipedia views 4.8 pages which is far more than the 1.3 pages per visit for Britannica.
However, there are still some people out there who like the traditional encyclopedia better. They don't trust Wikipedia because of its lack of oversight and regulation. The prefer the comfort of knowing that Britannica and other encyclopedias have expert contributors and a system of review and editing to ensure the articles are the best that they can be.
For me, I choose Wikipedia. Hundreds of thousands of people contribute to Wikipedia. It is self-policed, self-managed, and self-regulated. There is far more content available on Wikipedia than any other encyclopedia in terms of the number of articles, and the average article has a similar number of words as most other competitors. I have also found the articles to be more balanced and rich in references and links.
If you agree with me on these points, then I'd like you to consider the following... don't you wish your system of government and society were more like Wikipedia? Wikipedia is proof that the free market works. It is an example where the contributions of the many perform a better service than the authority of the few. There are a few bad apples to be sure. However, one bad apple at the top of the Britannica bureaucracy could bias and ruin the entire volume of work. The next time your told that the free market can't work or that the people need the government to step in and solve the problem, think about Wikipedia. Did I mention that you don't get paid to contribute to Wikipedia?
Of course, if you don't agree with me on my preference for Wikipedia, then we should argue some more!
2 comments:
Wikipedia is the best example of democratized media, period.
It's truly amazing to see where humans have come since Gutenberg.
Though for all of our excitement about the High Order Of Free Information, I like to also keep in mind that societies have cycled into long periods of ignorance throughout time as well. (Let's hope we're colonizing space before that arc hits again.)
It makes me wonder if someday some future society will find a server room at Wikimedia and try to find an electronic Rosetta Stone to figure out what all those hard drives hold. :-)
Before I detail a counter-argument, how do you substantiate your claim that "societies have cycled into long periods of ignorance"? Is that good for the globe or for specific pockets of society?
Post a Comment