If I were to edit a wiki I would have to edit the page on the band the Red Hot Chili Peppers. While the current article covers a lot of the band history, based on documented accounts of the band, it lacks any mention of the band's work that was not published. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have made many great songs that were not released on their albums, these songs are called B-sides. The article makes no mention of these B-sides, despite their popularity. If I were to edit this page I would discuss these unreleased tracks.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
wiki: a world wide perspective
A couple years ago, at the inception of wikipedia, the fact that anyone could edit a wiki was very problematic. Individuals would write things that were completely false and tamper with certain articles. One person at my high school once edited the page for Sheryl Crow, changing her picture to that of Bob Dylan and completely changing her biography. Now wiki's are monitored by knowledgeable advisors so this vandalism is corrected very quickly. It is due to the current system of "checks and balances," if you will, that I don't mind the fact that anyone can edit a wiki. Information is now monitored to ensure its authenticity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked your example of the kid from your high school who falsely edited a page. There has definitely been an increase in the frequency and quality of monitoring wikis, and for this I am thankful. If I need to quickly look something up, I can usually depend on Wikipedia having the information I am looking for, and then some.
ReplyDeleteIt would be cool to edit the Red Hot Chili Peppers page and see if your additions pass the test of legitimacy. Who's to say that the person monitoring the changes knows anything about the band? You should give it a try.
I really liked your post and found your Sheryl Crow example to be really funny. However, it's people like your high school friend who cause issues for everyone else with source reliability. I am glad that Wikipedia has improved its speed for revising inaccurate posts. Your analogy of checks and balances really describes the wiki system well. With so many varying viewpoints on all the topics, the bias is sure to be either weeded out or balanced out eventually, making the site more reliable for all users. This makes me much more confident in trusting Wikipedia's information when I need to learn something quick.
ReplyDelete