Wikipedia: Weighing the Worth of Wikis

Conduct a web search of a person, place or thing, and there is a good chance that you will be served a listing from Wikipedia in the top three results. Only surpassed by search engines Google, Yahoo, Baidu, and social giants Facebook and YouTube – Wikipedia is ranked 6th by Alexa in overall traffic. What is most amazing about this accomplishment, is the format by which it came to be the content colossus that it is today.

Wikipedia represents the potential of wiki sites to become a viable content management system (CMS), and as a budding resource in today’s emerging learning environments. The subject matter of a wiki can literally be about anything, but what differentiates these properties from traditional websites, is the ability for users to edit and collaborate on shared content. Paired with the option to make wikis public or private, the full potential of these communal CMS sites is limited only the the boundaries of human interest. These properties leverage groups of individuals, facilitating the acceleration in the content creation process.

meme-comic-wikipedia

As I mentioned in my introductory blog post, Hello World Campus, one of my favorite pastimes includes “going down the rabbit hole” of Wikipedia. This comparison always reminds me of the popular 1999 sci-fi film, The Matrix. If you didn’t see the movie, imagine that you were raised to believe that Wikipedia was a collection of all knowledge that is known in this world. If you couldn’t come to accept this statement as fact, could you provide any evidence or indicators outside of Wikipedia.com to prove the contrary?

This concept is explained through the meaning of the word matrix. From a mathematical standpoint, it implies an organizational structure in which two or more entities function within the confines of the established architecture. Applying this concept to the real world, such arrangements suggest boundaries and rules dictated by societal constructs, meaning that our actions are ultimately limited by what we perceive to be possible – based on the belief that these rules and boundaries indeed exist. In the movie, the world that most people view as reality, was simply a computer manufactured simulation. Because of this, it was not actually bound by an actual set of rules, but rather a shared acknowledgement and self-imposed limit on what was, and what was not possible.

Going back to the question, I am reminded of a time when the newest edition of an encyclopedia was viewed as the supreme authority in the library. Over time, content was digitized and accessed through CD-ROM, but ultimately, contained the exact same information, spliced with some choppy multimedia content. In both cases, these sources were self-contained and incapable of being updated, yet highly regarded as trustworthy in their day. At first glance, when compared to Wikipedia, these seem to more accurately embody the false reality that The Matrix represented. However, when attempting to employ Wikipedia as an educational tool, we uncover more elusive dilemmas that must be considered.

Content, whether digital or print, has one common drawback, it is created by humans. Connected to the system, humans contribute that which they can understand. Looking at personal experience and the attempt to find objectivity in research, we find that everything is ultimately subjective. The difference between Wikipedia and the dusty pages of Encyclopedia Britannica, is that wikis allow multiple people to contribute their edits, providing an arena for more perspectives to flourish. With an increased number in the potential points of failure, wikis in general allow for more universal knowledge construction by exploring multiple viewpoints as they pertain to a seemingly endless number of topics, across larger populations.

This does not imply that all edits and additions are impartial. In fact, Wadewitz raises concerns over the fact that only 10% of all editors are female, and that there is an even smaller concentration of feminist contributors on Wikipedia overall. While I agree that this is a shortfall that tends to perpetuate gender-bias in education (and countless other sectors), it also awakens people to the existence of these issues, allowing one to challenge the context of societal norms in a publicly recognized forum. This tends to reduce the likelihood of alienation and irrelevant discourse, in favor of crafting a quality, all-encompassing online entity. Much like waking up from the dream of The Matrix, and realizing that there is no spoon, the current limitations of wikis must be realized in order to tip the scales in nobody’s favor, so that all learners are able make the most out of the medium. While the feminist perspective is important, the uphill battle is no doubt representative of much larger sentiments, so such attitudes must always be considered.

Wikis in this case, provides an opportunity for increased equality, even if it is something as simple as changing pronouns to their gender-neutral form. Just as Wikipedia began with a single entry, subsequent edits are significant to the success of the community, as it strives to maintain global influence. The tacit nature if wikis in general provide a model that appears future-proof. The breadth of content offerings, allow for self-guided learning to occur by breaking down otherwise complex concepts. By applying existing expertise, internal linking strategies create a navigable sea of knowledge, by which one is allowed to stumble into related areas. Since the entire catalog of entries, for the sake of argument, is based in reality, it is possible to create an infinite number of connections in order to derive context. The relationship between hyperlinked entries, further develop meta-perspective, as one can trace the cultural-historical context of specific topics, and how they relate to others. At the risk of information overload, private and tightly focused wiki initiatives can help increase the likelihood of bringing about discernible and scalable change, within realms of immediate interest.

The organization of Wikipedia is set up in such a way, that it appears to be a self-governed environment, and it just so happens that one of its greatest flaws, also happens to be one of its greatest strengths – people. Through out participation, we inevitably provide perspective, and our online personas are meant to extend the ideas and values that drive our offline existence. When we realize that wikis are nothing more than socially constructed entities, we are able to turn sites like Wikipedia into machines for transforming subjectivity into objectivity. In this way, we see the promotion of opposing viewpoints that span spheres of influence, and not just circles. This multi-directional approach provides a democratic aspect to wikis that is otherwise limited to the comment sections and forums of other sites.

6 thoughts on “Wikipedia: Weighing the Worth of Wikis

  1. Aaron Post author

    Thanks @Phil!

    You bring up a great point on the debate and discussion that went on behind the scenes, as this is something I never really thought of before now. In my mind, there was just one “all-knowing” author who spent their days between publication, brushing up on what changed, and adding to the collection of knowledge. I must admit, Wikipedia continues to amaze me, given how difficult moderation and upkeep must be on such a wide scale, and allowing us to know the processes that go on behind the scenes is quite bold.

    Jumping ahead to this week’s reading, Theory of Knowledge, Social Media and Connected Learning in High School, I find a similar concept of knowledge building, with an emphasis on the process itself vs. the content discussed. I happen to find the adoption of revision histories in several Web 2.0, very interesting. The barrier to participation is essentially weakened over the length of a growing timeline, and no longer reliant on contributions that relate to the most current idea or concept. Excellent perspectives, Phil!

  2. Phil

    @Aaron – First of all, loved the comic! Wikipedia most definitely has that “rabbit hole” tendency 🙂 More broadly, you’ve written a very thought-provoking post here; lots of good stuff for all of us to mull over. Next, regarding your comment about Wikipedia and equality (e.g., Wikis in this case, provides an opportunity for increased equality, even if it is something as simple as changing pronouns to their gender-neutral form) yes – this is very significant given that in the era of analog encyclopedias, they were typically edited by a small, select group of individuals who determined what was to be included based not only on their domain expertise but also broader array of experiences, philosophies, etc. Back then, we only saw the final, polished product, namely, the hard-copy encyclopedia that appeared to have one “objective” voice as its author. But of course, in reality, there were discussions, debates and multiple rounds of edits that took place long before the final version was sent to the old-fashioned printing press. But we, as readers of these texts back then, didn’t see those any evidence of those discussions, debates or multiple rounds of edits. What’s happened with Wikipedia is that it, among other things, it has made this more evident; it’s shown us the messy reality of how encyclopedia entries are produced, or what Learning Science researchers (e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) would call “knowledge building.” In this setting, ideas and interpretations are debated and contested and this reveals the evolutionary nature of knowledge building in very explicit ways because we can see things such as the revision history. The revision history emerges as a type of dialogue among participants (e.g., contributors) and as a dialogue, it creates a conversational atmosphere that implicitly -and ideally- lowers the barriers to participation.

  3. Aaron Post author

    Thanks @Zach!

    Also, Thank You for sharing the Emerson quote, and your interpretation. It almost reminds me of step 1 in the 12-step process, and holds so much truth in our field. Even going back to last week’s implementation of tools in learning, it is just as important (if not more so) to realize the limitations, as well as the strengths of the individuals that will be using them.

  4. Joe

    Aaron,

    Excellent commentary on the readings. I especially appreciate your idea that “the current limitations of wikis must be realized in order to tip the scales in nobody’s favor.” The phrasing there is fantastic since you don’t frame the change as taking power away from anyone, but instead shifting to an equilibrium in order to decrease limitations. Of course an absence of bias is unlikely—no one really expects that—but that does mean it shouldn’t be a goal, as you allude to. The goal for objectivity is important for a reference work, a collection of information with inherent responsibility toward simply providing knowledge, not opinion.

  5. Zach

    Aaron, great post on Wikis. I loved your meme and I find myself doing the exact same thing on Wikipedia! Your comparison to the Matrix was also a great illustration of how humans perceive knowledge and Wikipedia. I’m not that old and I even remember when encyclopedias on CD-ROM’s were the “true knowledge”. I like you statement in your closing paragraph that “one of [Wikipedia’s] greatest flaws, also happens to be one of its greatest strengths – people.” This is crucial in recognizing when speaking about Wikipedia and education–but people is what keeps us human. Everyone always says that human error is the greatest weakness in just about everything–security, technology, education, gaming, etc. I also believe that we are our greatest strengths as well. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Our strength grows out of our weaknesses.” If we acknowledge that we are a part of the problem, we can overcome that and become a stronger solution.

Leave a Reply