Wiki What?

The Wikipedia Revolution

For those of you who are not familiar with Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) it is a free online encyclopedia of sorts. Wiki comes from wiki wiki, the Hawaiian word for fast. Wiki software is a program that allows you to easily create and edit a number of interlinked Web pages (Wiki-Wikipedia). 

It was created in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Originally Wales hired Sanger to help him with his website called Nupedia. The only problem was that after a whole year they only had twenty-one entries. Both creators claim that it was their own idea to use wiki software. Whoever came up with the idea, it was a successful one. After one year they had 20,000 entries. Recent articles state that the current number of entries range anywhere from 2.7 million (English only) to 9 million (including all languages).

Wales’ original idea was that information should be free and available to everyone. Free not only meaning no cost but also meaning editable by anyone. Information posted must be neutral, previously published and verifiable. As of 2006 there were over two hundred thousand registered users on the English site, thirty-three hundred of which are responsible for seventy percent of the work (Schiff).  To create an article you must be registered. However, anyone can edit a Wikipedia page.  A few highly controversial entries are locked for editing. In 2005 policy was changed to prevent cyber-bullying or vandalism by anonymous users (Johnson). This resulted in some semi-protected sites that you can only edit as a registered user. When you visit the site there are many “jobs” that are listed that the website needs help with. They list articles that need editing, verification, or general clean-up such as grammar corrections or citations being added.

          Wikipedia has developed its own type of language for everything to do with the site and users of the site. It’s wiki everything, from Wikimania to Wikipedians, WikiTrolls to WikiGnomes. There are acronyms and terms of all types whose meanings are privy to only insiders. Creating pages and editing articles has become an obsession. The popularity of the site has triggered what’s called “Wikipediholism” and “editcountitis” both of which are listed on the site in detail and linked to the page for obsessive-compulsive disorders (Schiff).

Wikipedia is so successful that others are jumping on the free edit bandwagon. Encyclopedia Britannica has announced that they will have online editing by the public. Google has also launched an online encyclopedia. The difference is that experts will create the entries and the public can improve upon them. The popularity of the site is evident when a web search is done. Many times the first search result listed will be in Wikipedia. It has spawned a multitude of other “wiki” pages. Aside from the 256 Wikipedias, there is Lyric Wiki, Wii Wiki, Schindler’s List Wiki, and Heroes Wiki. There are wikis for cooking, health and religion. The lists go on and on.

Due to problems with inaccurate information being posted, such as the recent reporting of the deaths of two prominent politicians, Wikipedia is considering changing their editing policies by allowing new articles to go live only after being reviewed by a group of editors (Johnson).  As you can imagine this has caused an uproar by the many users of Wikipedia saying that this will change the fundamental basis of the entire website. Wikipedia also struggles with their identity. Wanting to be considered a legitimate and creditable source for information and trying to stay with the roots of the website.  For a group called the “Inclusionists” at Wikipedia, this means allowing what some would consider trivial information to be included as part of the website. For the opposing group, the “Deletionists” it would mean restricting entries to a choice few per subject and eliminating articles that would detract from Wikipedia being taken seriously. “Inclusionists” believe that there is enough room on the internet for all subjects and that by adding more articles for example, on Pokémon characters, will not detract in any way from a more serious subject or prevent someone looking for information from finding it simply because another Pokémon page is added (The Battle for Wikipedia’s Soul). Despite being edited by non-professionals a survey done by Nature in 2005 comparing Wikipedia entries to Encyclopedia Britannica’s found that for every four errors in Wikipedia, Britannica had three (Schiff).

Considering the amount of time Wikipedia has been on the internet it is still a youngster with lots of room to grow. I personally have used it for many projects and just general inquiries. It’s a fun site to visit when looking for little quirky references or bits of trivia.  I have experienced a teacher instructing the class that we could use Wikipedia for our research but we could not list it as a source. I find the information on the whole to be correct.  Just as “Marc Prensky talked about in his article, like any source, it should not be used as the sole place for research.”  When Wikipedia is coupled with other websites and research materials it can give you a good basis for information.

WORKS CITED

“Wikipedia.” 15 August 2002. Wikipedia. 4 June 2009.

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

The history of Wikipedia. Covers the creation, co-founders,  history, languages, reliability and biases.  It covers the wiki community and all associated pages.  The hardware and software used is discussed at length. The page has been edited thousands of times. In the many times I navigated back and forth to the site during my research there was constantly a new date for editing listed.

“Wiki.” Wikipedia.  7 June 2009

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

Explanation of the word wiki – origination and usage in current websites. Examples on how to edit a wiki page and  how to navigate as well as the general concept and trustworthiness of the information presented.

 Schiff, Stacy.  “Annals of Information - Know It All - Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise? “  31 July 2006.

The New Yorker   5 June 2009.

 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact

Schiff covers everything from the history of the encyclopedia to Wikipedia’s one millionth entry.  Her detailed article talks about founder Jimmy Wales’ early ventures in the Internet and how Wikipedia came to be.  She covers the format, editing policy and contributors. She refers to the site as a work in progress.

Howe, Jeff. “Google Launches Knol.” 24 July 2008. Crowdsourcing. 6 June 2009.

http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2008/07/google-launches.html

Description of the new Google online encyclopedia. Discussion of the changes at Wikipedia to include more stringent editing policies and the move for all online encyclopedias towards a more uniform editing policy consisting of some form of combined professional and public editing.

"Wikipedia editors may approve all changes.(Guardian International Pages)." The Guardian    

(London, England) (Jan 27, 2009): 18. General Reference Center Gold. Gale. 

Quinsigamond Community College. 6 June 2009 

A brief article on the proposal by Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales to change how the website is run.  Although there is a majority on a user poll in favor of trying the new format many editors are leaving due to disagreement over the change.

"The battle for Wikipedia's soul." Economist 386.8570 (08 Mar. 2008): 3-4. Academic Search

            Premier. EBSCO. Quinsigamond Community College Library. 5 June 2009.

This article poses the question, ‘Does it matter if Wikipedia includes trivia?” It talks about the future of the site and the ongoing battle between “Inclusionists” and “Deletionists”. Their struggle is to decide whether to keep Wikipedia as it is with everyone able to post or making the site more in the traditional encyclopedia style without trivial articles.

Prensky, Marc.  “Or, the Fear of The Wikipedia Overcome by New Understanding for a Digital

            Era.”  Search vs. Research 5 June 2009.

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Search_vs_Research-01.pdf

In this article Prensky discusses using Wikipedia as an education tool and resource. Prensky believes that Wikipedia should be used as a source for information in school but most educators do not think it is a reliable enough source.  His argument is that students should never use just one source, that constitutes searching.  Whereas using multiple sources of information is researching. He also discusses the history of Wikipedia and why educators are reluctant to allow students to use it as tool for research.