Defending Wikipedia - 3 comments

If I were Oliver Kamm, I'd worry about being typecast: the latest tirade against Wikipedia (I think his "The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions" gives me the green-light to use this word), and 'citizen journalism' in general (on which I posted here), is quite unreasonably overblown. Update: You don't need to tell me about the perils of having to live on the proceeds of writing, but seeking to undermine the credibility of such a rich and varied resource on the basis of a few cases of abuse seems unwarranted.

A dozen years into the Internet search-engine revolution, during which people have cobbled together articles and opinions from a wide range of sources of differing credibilities, why now should we castigate an online service that (a) organises this information, (b) is bound by codes of good practice, and (c) seeks to prevent abuse - bearing in mind that the "WikiScanner" tool provides cautious readers with an additional tool (beyond the many Wikipedia already supply) to identify possibly manipulation?

Wikipedia makes no more claims to authority than any 'dead-tree' encyclopaedia (in fact, less, surely). Anyone who seeks to attach authority by writing on the basis of one resource is on shaky ground, whether that be the Wikipedia or otherwise, and is just as likely to be put straight by someone who can convince an audience that they are more informed.

One substantial difference is that Wikipedia drastically reduces research times - no more fruitless afternoons spent in University libraries - can be updated far more readily than printed resources, and 'back copies' are available for free to those who wish to see how the article has developed. Why should I invest £35 in a technical manual, within whose pages the first few casual readers might have spotted errors that its non-expert editor has missed? Before the Internet, considerable effort would have been required to confirm such errors, and to establish, on the basis of the balance of alternative opinion, what might have been intended. By denying the importance of 'consensus' in the early stages of research, Kamm would greatly increase the cost of identifying such errors.

I'll continue to consult the Wikipedia because all my experience tells me that the ill-will of hackers and devious organisations is no match for the professional pride of experts, enthusiasts, and thoughtful people of good faith. If I didn't think that, god knows what other drivel I might accept at face value.