Philosophy 101 Unit 1

In class one fine day we had a show of hands of who had read the Wikipedia article. I believe I was the only person who raised their hand. So I’ve decided to share some points of that article, along with my views and maybe some other’s. Feel free to share your on view on the subject, or share some profound wisdom or just a comment on the post will be awesome.

In this article (on page 167 of that blue booklet we had to buy) there is a special report by nature (magazine or journal or something) about internet encyclopaedias—and there is a big picture of a guy holding a mac laptop (and just because he is holding a mac, you know he is super awesome).

If you don’t know (which I’m sure all of you do (I just like typing more cause it uses more words (parenthesis are good for that))) Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Pretty sweet. This way, professionals (or people that just know a lot) in some field can share insight with the rest of the online users. However, idiots can also add and edit, and the average user of Wikipedia won’t know if it was a professional or an idiot that posted the information. So, Wikipedia is really controversial as an accurate source for information.

Nature decided to compare Wikipedia to the well-respected Encyclopaedia Britannica. The results were surprising. Among 42 (good number—if you’ve read hitchhiker’s) entries tested, the average science entry in Wikipedia contained four inaccuracies, and Britannica had three.

Wikipedia is growing incredibly fast, and Jimmy Wales (a co-founder) says, “Our goal is to get to Britannica quality or better.”

The article gets more into numbers from their tests and stuff like that, so if you’re interested in that check out the article, it’s pretty cool. Overall the article made the point that Britannica and Wikipedia don’t differ much in their number of overall errors.

If you find this surprising, think about how Wikipedia is edited by experts from all over, and it has live updating (which is very important if you want an accurate encyclopedia).

I am a heavy user of Wikipedia, and I think it’s wonderful. I’m not usually afraid of it being from a bad source, because many people watch for mistakes, and sometimes authorities from Wikipedia will suspend editing on an article if too many issues keep arising. I love the atmosphere of society pooling together knowledge for the good of mankind.

Of course, there are many opposite views. My high school librarians, for example, are convinced that Wikipedia is the root of all evil in the world, and it is ruining our generation. To them, it isn’t reliable unless it’s from a gigantic 42 volume set of heavy dusty books.

I can’t easily carry around huge encyclodaedias, but I can carry around my iPod touch and easily check my beloved Wikipedia if I have a question about anything from Descartes to neodymium magnets. And because the two sources are comparable, why not go with the one that has universal access and can fit in my pocket (assuming I have a good wi-fi hot spot)?

I was surprised at first when I read about there being only a few differences between the errors in Wikipedia and Britannica. After I’ve been thinking about it, I’m not surprised at all. And what’s so great about it all, is that the experts from nature who found mistakes can easily fix them on Wikipedia, and suddenly it would have fewer mistakes than the printed encyclopaedia for those articles. The same can’t be said for Britannica.