Controversial issues in contemporary society

Wiki Controversy

The Controversy over Wikipedia and the Democratization of Information

In the age of information, few things are more controversial than source validity and intellectual property. The free and easily accessible availability of information and the capacity for individuals to express themselves without limitation have both been stimulated by the proliferation of the web. And just as this has improved the ability of many to self-educate or to take part in creating a body of human knowledge, it has simultaneously presented an array of risks to the validity and reliability of said knowledge. Perhaps the most prominent example of this dilemma is that reflected by Wikipedia. An extremely valuable resource, this online database constitutes the world's largest and most varied periodical. One of its most important philosophical features is that any user can contribute to the entries which make up the online encyclopedia. According to Farber (2006), "Wikipedia, made by humans, is a reflection of a struggle to reach a largely unattainable ideal, but it's not a failed or doomed struggle. It is just an ongoing stuggle, an experiment in collective publishing. The fact that Wikipedia is accumulating more structure and policies, a civil policing, is the core group of pioneers trying to tame the wild frontier." (Farber, p. 1)

Therefore, just as this approach helps to broaden the perspective being offered by the source, it makes the source highly susceptible to error, inaccuracy and even abuse. It is thus that Wikipedia is generally considered extremely flimsy as a basis for research, fact-checking or journalism. Indeed, most credible classrooms, publications and newsrooms will generally reject Wikipedia as an invalid source, even where the potential for some information to be accurate exists. But for its supporters, Wikipedia is a remarkable opportunity to create greater democracy in the knowledge economy. This has prompted a great conceptual and philosophical controversy with no end in sight.

This reflects a concern cited in the article by Hitlin, which reports that "the nature of the Internet has created a new method for consumers to get their news and allowed for far greater numbers of people to become involved with the production and dissemination of news. As a consequence, cyberjournalism and the internet have had real effects on both the process of reporting and subsequent public discourse." (p. 140) In particular, we must now be inclined to subject that which we read to greater scrutiny. For the average user who does not possess the responsibility to translate this research into actionable research or journalism, Wikipedia can still offer some benefits. Though Wikipedia will often tend to be a controversial source -- more due to the absence of an accredited peer-review process instead of the absence of valid information -- when cross-checked by additional credible sources, it may actually be considered an extremely useful point at which to gather information in a central and organization location. Moreover, according to our research, its level of scholarly validity is not significantly different from that of traditional encyclopedias. To the point, "it is a myth that other encyclopedia articles are written by experts in the field of the article. Rather, articles are written by professional writers and journalists that are non-specialists in the field in which they are writing articles." (Debatepedia, p. 1)