Birth of Wikipedia – Jimmy Wales TED Talk

1. Did this video change your opinion or reinforce your opinion about Wikipedia? Why or why not?
2. What do you think of Wales’ comment that an encyclopedia should be radical rather than safe and stodgy? Should the same philosophy apply to libraries?
3. What do you think about the Wikipedia policies on neutrality, truth, and objectivity?

 

Did this video change your opinion or reinforce your opinion about Wikipedia? Why or why not?

I already had a good impression and positive opinion of Wikipedia. I understand the common complaint that since it is so easy to edit that the information may be less trustworthy. So does Wikipedia. However, if the user is careful to check the references given in the Wikipedia entries, they should find links to quality sources and overall help research.

This video (which I had not seen before) reinforced my positive opinion. I was glad to hear Wales talk about the Bush/Kerry controversy. Although I wasn’t particularly interested in that specific controversy, I liked hearing how Wikipedia handled such issues. I have found Wikipedia to be refreshingly neutral and agree generally with Wales statement:

The real struggle is not between the right and the left -- that's where most people assume -- but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on either of those qualities.”

Wikipedia is very “hit and miss”. Some articles are very thorough and complete, others need a great deal of work. I’m regularly surprised that the entries I have reason to access are as good as they are. I’ve frequently used Wikipedia in Chinese although many articles do not have Chinese entries.

What do you think of Wales’ comment that an encyclopedia should be radical rather than safe and stodgy? Should the same philosophy apply to libraries?

I’m always the guy that answers “both” to either/or questions. That is my answer here, too.

Wikipedia was pretty radical at the time of this TED Talk - 2006. Is it still considered radical today? Thinking about this assignment prompted me to sign up for an account at Quora. I’ve heard about it for several months now and from looking at the site today, it might make Wikipedia look a little “safe and stodgy”. I’m OK with this. I still love Wikipedia and I’m glad to see it maturing and broadening its reach and impact. Maybe the most radical thing about Wikipedia now isn’t that the content is user edited or that it is digital but that it is improving access to that content.

Just today, Wikimedia Foundation and Indian mobile operator Aircel announced that Aircel customers can now access m.wikipedia.org and zero.wikipedia.org with no data charges. This is significant and radical, in my opinion.

From the linked article:

“It is our mission to provide free access to knowledge for everyone in the world,” says Amit Kapoor Senior Manager, Mobile Partnerships, at the Wikimedia Foundation. “It’s only fitting then that today we announced our first Wikipedia Zero partnership launch in India, the world’s second most populous country.”

Free access? That is radical. And awesome.

What do you think about the Wikipedia policies on neutrality, truth, and objectivity?

From the Five Pillars of WIkipedia:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

This seems very reasonable to me and gives Wikipedia more credibility. Since the number of pages and editors is high, it sometimes happens that an article is not neutral. That is understandable. It is worth noting that any person may address the problem of neutrality on an article by editing it directly and/or marking it as not NPOV and/or flagging statements with a “citation needed” flag.

To summarize, I do not expect sources of information to be completely unbiased and I factor possible bias into my access, reliance, and use of information from various sources. I find Wikipedia’s openness about their goals and the possibility of bias in some articles as an admirable one.