Previous Page | Page 3 of 5 | Next Page |
Putting the Net back in Network Wikipedia is not without its critics. Just as so many people have praised the site for its result and method, just as many are criticizing the open structure that produces it. As mentioned, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit any article that is contained on the site. Take an article about Abraham Lincoln, for example. If you didn’t believe that Abe was responsible for the end of slavery, for example, you could write that. You could also write that Abe Lincoln invented the light bulb. You would be wrong, but until someone corrected it, that’s what anyone who accessed the site would read. With 1.6 million articles and growing, how many of the sites are subject to both purposeful vandalism (particularly those on controversial subjects) and bad data? And how can anyone keep up with all of that? In addition to bad facts, there have also been complaints that some Wikipedia articles are written with a particular bias. This has been a particularly potent subject during heated political seasons, as candidate biographies are altered by those who wish not to see them in office. Claims of bias extend throughout the network, but the same claims arguably would taint almost any encyclopedia, even those written by experts. The Wikipedia creators claim they have instituted measures that curtail many of the biases and vandalism that harm the site, including a strict policy that writers approach each subject with a neutral point of view. Today, a casual search through Wikipedia, particularly to topics that seem less controversial, reveals a remarkable database of knowledge on all manner of subject, from the arts to science, from technology to popular culture. Perhaps the new measures have taken hold. Perhaps not. But, the willingness of readers and editors around the world to share their knowledge is enough to make even the most fervent cynic stand up and cheer. |
Previous Page | Page 3 of 5 | Next Page |