Friday, February 11, 2005
Wiki Wiki Wiki
I just had my first experience participating in the creation of Wikipedia. This is a web encyclopedia armed with wiki (I think that's an acronym, though I don't know what for)--technology that allows anyone to update and edit the content of a web page. The concept of Wikipedia basically is that it amasses the collective knowledge of everyone who uses it. It's always changing, so it's always current and thorough.
I'm doing some research for my third-year paper this afternoon, and looked up the term "podcasting" on Wikipedia. It turned out that as part of the entry there was a list of news articles about podcasting, but it was missing an article I had just read. So I added it to the list. It was really quite easy and my edits were on the page instantaneously.
In one sense, the Wikipedia concept seems a little shady. I mean, if just anyone can edit the page, can't just anyone put a bunch of lies on it? We all know that you can't necessarily believe everything you read on the Internet, but editing Wikipedia seems even easier than creating your own webpage (or blog!).
On the other hand, the fact that just anyone can edit it is exactly what's so cool about Wikipedia. Where else could I find a list of articles on a topic, including ones that came out this week? I'm not going to find a definition of "bloggernacle" in the dictionary. I was reading a piece by Orson Scott Card last night, where he talks about the way he plays Scrabble: coining words is acceptable, as long as the word seems reasonable. He argues that it's no fun to be able to play "only the subset [of words] that lexicographers chose ten years ago based on writings of ten years before that. The language is changing and dictionaries are always behind the curve." Well, Wikipedia is a lot more current than the Official Scrabble Players' Dictionary. And for some reason, I do trust it. After all, I helped write it!
I'm doing some research for my third-year paper this afternoon, and looked up the term "podcasting" on Wikipedia. It turned out that as part of the entry there was a list of news articles about podcasting, but it was missing an article I had just read. So I added it to the list. It was really quite easy and my edits were on the page instantaneously.
In one sense, the Wikipedia concept seems a little shady. I mean, if just anyone can edit the page, can't just anyone put a bunch of lies on it? We all know that you can't necessarily believe everything you read on the Internet, but editing Wikipedia seems even easier than creating your own webpage (or blog!).
On the other hand, the fact that just anyone can edit it is exactly what's so cool about Wikipedia. Where else could I find a list of articles on a topic, including ones that came out this week? I'm not going to find a definition of "bloggernacle" in the dictionary. I was reading a piece by Orson Scott Card last night, where he talks about the way he plays Scrabble: coining words is acceptable, as long as the word seems reasonable. He argues that it's no fun to be able to play "only the subset [of words] that lexicographers chose ten years ago based on writings of ten years before that. The language is changing and dictionaries are always behind the curve." Well, Wikipedia is a lot more current than the Official Scrabble Players' Dictionary. And for some reason, I do trust it. After all, I helped write it!
Comments: Post a Comment
