The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part I

In all honesty, Wikipedia has become one of my "go to" sites when I am searching for information on a topic and need quick and easy access to it. That probably is the best part about Wikipedia, is the convenience of attaining that information, even though being fully aware that all of it might not be accurate. As author Andrew Dalby states, "Wikipedia is a good first stop to get the basics in a hurry, especially for tech and pop culture topics that probably won't ever make it into Britannica" (pg. 91). The first half of the book goes on to discuss how Wikipedia came about. In earlier days encyclopedias were used as a source of information and to obtain knowledge about certain topics. However, printing and creating updated versions of encyclopedias was a tedious and expensive task. Then came the next solution, electronic encyclopedias on a CD-ROM. As this new phenomenon emerged, there were many different electronic encyclopedias sold, however, "Encarta was sold cheap and bundled liberally. It swept the market" (pg. 30). When I read that I laughed, because I actually remember back in the day when I used Encarta as a source for most of my information on school projects. So instead of researching in encyclopedias or checking out books at the library, electronic encyclopedias allowed people to find information in the comfort of their own home at their own computer. It also didn't hurt that the CD-ROM was reasonably priced as well. This is what our society is most obsessed with today, convenience and money, and another reason why Wikipedia is so popular is because it's free and easily accessible. However, the fact that information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is it's greatest downfall, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits because millions of people still use it. "'Neutral point of view' is probably the most practical aim for collaborative project like Wikipedia" (pg. 78). However, much of the information on Wikipedia generally tends to be liberal, showing a slight bias against right-wing views. Anyone can use Wikipedia, and therefore anyone can anonymously edit the information presented on topic, so therefore filtering out opinions and biases is not an easy task. Then there is also the problem of citing. Who is given credit for the information posted on Wikipedia? We discussed this in class a few weeks ago how the definition of plagiarism is changing or becoming hazy because of all these sites like Wikipedia. If a student uses a certain website for a school project, but cannot site who the author is, is it plagiarism? If these are the problems were facing with internet sites today, then i can only imagine the problems we'll face in the future. Internet sites have the ability to spread like a viral plague. The problem with our society is, once it catches up to us we get attached and accustomed to it, and by then we don't know how to work without it. We know Wikipedia is not the best source to gain our information, but we still use it anyway. It has become the best alternative to quickly find the information you need, all in one place.