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.
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.