Looking back on Wikipedia over 2014
Katherine Maher has written a piece in the Wikimedia Foundation’s blog introducing the first video to explain just what Wikipedia is and does, reflecting the contributions of thousands of people from all over the world during 2014. The video is impressive, consisting of a series of screens that allow the viewer to review the year’s hot topics, and powerfully reminds us that Wikipedia is far and away the best encyclopedia humanity has ever created, a collective effort that is the most extensive, the most complete, and without a doubt, the most up to date.
I am proud to say that I have made my own small contribution to Wikipedia: as the author of a page that I have updated every day since 2003, I use Wikipedia continually by providing links to it as a way of providing my readers with more in-depth information about a subject. For the reader, to see that a company, a person, or a concept has a dedicated page in Wikipedia allows them to assess their relevance in a reasonably objective way.
As a result of my constant use of the page, as well as my appreciation of the contribution it makes to my work as a teacher, content creator, and researcher, I have always contributed to its periodic fundraising campaigns. Wikipedia is independent, and does not fund itself through advertising. It makes no claims on us, but a significant number of us choose, year after year, to not only contribute financially, but also through the written word. Wikipedia may not be part of the traditional economy, but it creates huge value for its users, and what’s more, wouldn’t exist without our financing. As its founder, Jimmy Wales, has said, turning it into a conventional business would not only threaten its neutrality but also the inclination of the thousands of people who edit it free of charge because they feel they belong to it, not something that is bigger than them with its own economic dimension.
Watching the Wikipedia video also reminded me of all the hours that I have spent telling people about its qualities, and that quite simply, it has no rival. But it wasn’t until 2005, that a study in the journal Nature began to convince the doubters that Wikipedia was as rigorous as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Today, we know that in fact it is far, far superior. Anybody who still harbors doubts should compare and contrast.
It’s hard to believe that people went to so much trouble to denigrate Wikipedia, picking out minor mistakes that were corrected by editors within hours. At the same time, Wikipedia is also a reflection of William Gibson’s wise words that state that “The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.” But sadly, there are still teachers out there who tell their students not to use Wikipedia “because anybody can edit it and get things wrong or make things up,” along with other academics who snobbishly refuse to allow references to Wikipedia in essays, or those who simply peddle hearsay along the lines of, “my brother-in-law told me…”
As we approach 2015, Wikipedia is the most ambitious and important collective cultural project that humanity has ever undertaken. A reflection of what we are and what we do, and the compressed version of which we would have to place in any hypothetical spaceship we might send out to tell other intelligent life in the universe about ourselves.
Wikipedia shows that there are alternative ways to build successful organizations and projects, outside the realms of traditional businesses. Not all businesses need be about making a profit in the conventional sense: some create value in different ways, and make a major contribution. Paradoxically, it is hard to imagine how taking a traditional business approach could have created a more successful competitor to Wikipedia. A lesson if ever there was one that we should strive to apply to as many areas in life as possible.
(En español, aquí)
