Who Writes Wikipedia?!
We all have to just come out and admit it: Wikipedia is undoubtedly an irreplaceable resource for basic information about whatever it is we need to know.
I can think of countless times in my own life where I have turned to Wikipedia for reliable information on a plethora of topics, completely without disappointment. I would even go to say that it is becoming an increasingly vital tool in everyone’s life with the rise of smartphones and immediate internet access with you wherever you are. If you get out your phone to look something up, Wikipedia is always there within the first few results: a familiar and trusted name.
Well…familiar and trusted to most all college aged student, however I can guarantee that most, if not all, of their professors would disagree.
Time after time however, Wikipedia’s credibility is criticized due to its relaxed approach to authorship, leading to variably accurate information. To approach the issue of collective authorship myself, I immediately turned to Wikipedia’s website itself.
There I found this self proclaimed statistic:
126,672 recent contributors?! Personally, at I thought this doesn’t bode very well for Wikipedia considering the additional fact that users can edit content whether they are registered with the site or not. Phrased in these particular terms, Wikipedia seems like and easy target to accumulate unfiltered content, much like some of what I see happen on the community information sharing and organizing website Reddit.
Despite this perceived vulnerability, Wikipedia seems to be regarded as the go-to source for reliable information time after time.
How Does This Work?
Based upon what I have gathered from information on Wikipedia, general consensuses are usually reach on most not debate-able topics. When an author contributes to a page, their initial post can be continually changed until reaching a state of being polished, detailed, and more importantly, factual.
This evolution of articles highlights the beauty of the inner workings of Wikipedia, and ultimately it’s main issues as well.
Unless given direct attention by a Wikipedia editor, pages can go incomplete or completely awry factually. Conversely, Wikipedia has featured pages that are held in the highest regard in terms of their content. This wide discrepancy accounts for some individual’s mistrust of Wikipedia, yet I argue if you have common sense, you should usually be able to make that distinction yourself fairly easily.
While obviously not a perfect tool, Wikipedia is arguably best at what it does. As hard as it is ensuring what is published on the internet is representative of reality, Wikipedia puts forth a valiant effort.
Becoming a household name and utility, Wikipedia leads the way in suppling the demand for free online encyclopedias. Despite it’s convenience and breadth of subject matter I offer this final piece of advice to my fellow Wikipedia lovers:
No matter how true something may appear, never forget the old adage “Not everything you read on the Internet is true.”
