In
academia, Wikipedia has often been criticized for being too changeable,
inaccurate or shallow with respect to its articles (Purdy). However, the academic practice of peer
reviewing plays a large part in the processes required to edit or add an
article in Wikipedia. Furthermore,
we can see that changeability often keeps information up to date, inaccuracies
are thoroughly explored by experts, and articles are constantly being expanded
to give readers a deeper understanding of a topic. With this in mind, we can see that Wikipedia gives us the
chance to reassess the meaning and impact of error by becoming actively
involved in a different kind of academic community.
Wikipedia,
the online encyclopedia, provides users with a chance to explore and actively
share information on nearly any topic.
Everyday, more articles are being added, while existing articles are
being corrected. By looking beyond
the default “read page” the processes that allow for this constant change are visible
and accessible to everyone.
Editing is the most common way to add to the compendium of
knowledge. In order to provide
editors contact with one another, Wikipedia provides a “talk page” which is
more or less a forum for people who are interested and knowledgeable in the
topic of the article. In this “talk
page”, editors and interested parties can discuss what needs to be added to an
article, why something was deleted, why sources are relevant and more. This type of public acknowledgement of
changes lends authority to people who are truly interested in a subject. Furthermore this “talk page” often
leads to editing that improves an article. All edits can be seen on the “edit page” of an article. This page shows every change that has
occurred on a topic, who made the change and when it was changed. The “edit” and “talk” pages of an
article serve as a sort of peer review which strengthen the credibility of the
information on a specific topic.
In addition to this peer reviewing, Wikipedia requires articles to have
appropriate and reliable sourcing.
If an article is not sourced or sourced reliably, then it may be removed
from Wikipedia entirely. Although
most of us use Wikipedia regularly, these editing processes usually go
unnoticed, despite the fact that they are responsible for providing the
credible information on which we rely.
With
the processes and abilities of a Wikipedia page in mind, we can begin to see
that the misconceptions held by many academics are not always rooted in reality. In Joseph M. Williams’ “The
Phenomenology of Error” we can see that in all forms of academic writing, error
is simply a construct built over many years but based on arbitrary rules. According to Williams, “we are all
locating error in very different places.” This, he asserts, is the source of
our problems with error. For
example, an error in grammar does not always reflect an error in content. In fact, “when we read for typos,”
Williams claims, “…content becomes virtually inaccessible” (Williams). With this in mind, we must decide what
we consider to be an error before approaching a piece of writing. Furthermore, if an error goes unnoticed
we can assume that it is not an error at all. Certainly, a paper with a typo can be equally as informative
as one without as long as the misspelling doesn’t hinder the intended
meaning. Williams uses his article
itself as an example by including deliberate grammatical errors (Williams). His meaning and purpose come across
clearly despite the errors—which go largely unnoticed.
As a result of the ideas presented
in this reading we should consider that not all errors indicate that a piece of
writing is unreliable, including writing on Wikipedia. “The Phenomenology of Error” can provide
us with a larger understanding of the meaning of error. For example, as I previously described,
academia frequently points out that, “articles [on Wikipedia] can display
incorrect information” (Purdy).
However, Williams reminds us that if we look for error we will find it
(Williams). Thus, by excluding
Wikipedia as a source altogether, we can lose a valuable source of correct
information. Rather, we should
recognize that Wikipedia could help us understand error by actively allowing us
to correct it. By taking advantage
of the “edit” and “talk” pages we can create a massive peer review community
that can improve everyone’s knowledge of a topic. Finding an error in an article does not mark it as
unreliable, it simply provides room for improvement and growth.
Another
criticism of Wikipedia that I touched on earlier was its changeable
nature. However, in my experience
with Wikipedia, I feel that changeability contributed to making articles more
reliable. For example, it is
obvious that our world is constantly changing. When changes occur, editors on Wikipedia can alter articles
instantly to reflect current events.
I noticed this in my article selection for our own Wikipedia edits. In my case, the number of children who
were affected by a Canadian Bill was brought into question. The editors of the article
discussed on the talk page how the number was inaccurate and determined that a
source was outdated. This type of continuous
interaction with other editors and public sources is not possible in academic
journals or standard encyclopedias.
In this case (and I suspect many others) Wikipedia’s changeability is a
positive rather than a negative.
Additionally, I discussed previously that many people feel that
Wikipedia’s articles are too shallow and provide only a simple overview of a
topic (Purdy). While many
articles are very brief, others go into incredible detail. Furthermore, the sourcing on Wikipedia
is generally closely patrolled and can provide readers with sources beyond the
article page. The talk page can
also provide additional sources for information from experts. Thus, although Wikipedia is like all
other encyclopedias in respect to the general overview of its content, our
search for information does not need to end with the article itself (Purdy). Wikipedia is, in this respect, superior
to other sources and encyclopedias because of its ability to provide
information beyond the superficial “read” page.
Wikipedia
has certainly suffered its fair share of criticism since becoming a popular
source for information online.
However, after becoming a part of the editing community, I feel that
Wikipedia can contribute largely to our understanding of error. Furthermore, I now see that an
article’s “read” page is only the beginning when I am looking for information.
Rather than relying on a completely independent search for information, I
believe that we can count on Wikipedia for both sourcing and large supporting community.
Bibliography
Purdy, James P.
"Wikipedia Is Good for You!?" Writing Spaces. Vol. 1. Parlor. 205-24.Writing Spaces. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
Wiliams, Joseph
M. "The Phenomenology of Error." College Composition and Communication 32.2 (1981):
152-68. JSTOR. National Council
of Teachers of English. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment