I was reading an interesting article in TPM (the philosopher's magazine) about Wikipedia. There was a debate concerning the entries in Wikipedia in terms of their ability to make qualitative distinction on information and knowledge. In other words, one author suggested that there should be a prioritizing, a hierarchy of information like in an encyclopedia written by experts, while the other author supported writers' rights to define for themselves what is important information, what gets to be included etc without setting limit. For example, the opposer of Wikipedia made the point that in Wikipedia, an article about Pamela Anderson may be longer than an article about the Edgar Allan Poe. In addition, the later may be filled with information written by people who are not experts. On the other hand, the supporter was saying that since Wikipedia entries are not in paper, thus there is no need to save space, there shouldn't be such limitations. And that the entries should reflect the writer's perceived notion of importance.
Nevertheless, this NY times article makes a good point by saying that "the greater the foot traffic, the safer the neighborhood". This may have implications about the importance of multiple voices and opinions for each entry.
1 year ago
I'll write more about this in my blog on the article, but I think it all depends on how you view Wikipedia. I think if you recognize that it is an open forum and not necessarily written by experts then a limitless form is best. The problem arises when people (think young students) take wikipedia entries as truth and look no further. As educators, we need to ensure that students understand Wikipedia's strengths and limitations.
ReplyDelete