John C. Dvorak, in his post on PCMag.com The Wikification of Knowledge interestingly discusses the survivability of open-edit programs like Wikipedia. Arguing that humans are inherently self-serving, Dvorak claims that the "idealists" behind public programs like Wikipedia will not be able to counter the growing threat of "...[f]ictitious posts, spam, grudge pages, lies, politically motivated opinions, [&] online vandalism..." that is associated with--what Dvorak claims is-- normal social behavior.
Basically, Mr. Dvorak believes that public-collaborative programs are built upon the utopian values of a few idealists, and that as more users get connected, the flow of spam, etc. will be too much for these sites' moderators to handle.
I agree and disagree with Mr. Dvorak. I too believe that Wikipedia is built upon idealistic values, but I think that as Wikipedia becomes more popular the technology protecting it will only become more advanced. Also, Wikipedia benefits from the millions of dollars in donations that users bestow upon the site. This money will certainly be used to either buffer the income of the site's thousands of currently-volunteer editors, or establish an elaborate filter program to help mitigate the threat from spammers.
As a frequent user of Wikipedia, I am skeptic of Mr. Dvorak's skepticism. For me, Wikipedia is here to stay.
What Harry Means to Me
-
Instead of writing a review of how great Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows: Part II (because it's obvious how awesome it is), I thought I
would share wh...
12 years ago
I agree with your post. I don't think Wikipedia is going anywhere anytime soon because it has become such an integral part of our daily lives. Want to learn more about something quickly? Wikipedia it. It's also become more reliable because of the citations it contains for its information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you too. I understand that Wikipedia could be messy sometimes with spams and such, but it's still a great starting point of research. When I look at wikipedia, I look at it as "connection center" rather than encyclopedia. People will be benefited from such service so I think wikipedia will survive.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you. I didn't know that there are so much money from users to Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia itself has really good meaning, but there are some limitations from unauthorized users. It's the thing we have to solve to make much more perfect Wiki.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree for the most part about the usefulness of Wikipedia, I still think it needs serious work to make sure it stays reputable. I know friends of mine who have changed the AU wiki site with ridiculous comments and had the posts up there for at least a couple days. The temptation to mess with articles is pretty high. Increased filtering and oversight are the only way Wikipedia will lose its "joke" stigma
ReplyDeleteMr. Dvorak's claim is very interesting: that Wikipedia is run and managed not by experts in their fields but by "Utopian idealists"
ReplyDelete