While I do not profess to be any Expert on Library Science, or the Media, or much of anything at all, I am aware that there is a perception in the general Population that Wikipedia, the Free Online Encyclopedia is less than trustworthy. That is an interesting idea, that needs to be at least briefly explored.
Wikipedia is unique in both design and function. It is can be edited by anyone who can access it, and the Articles are thereby constantly under review by any and everyone reading them. It is considered to be an Open Source Website.
The Reliability of the information in Wikipedia is often called into question. As it is an Open Source Project, as mentioned before, there are some who feel that it does not have sufficient controls on the accuracy of the information in the Articles. I find that an odd assertion. Conceivably, Experts from various areas of Research and Media can and do read Wikipedia Articles regularly. Does that not actually make Wikipedia ultimately MORE Democratic than other Sources? And be aware, Recorded Depictions of Reality are often the Product of Consensus, so Facts are sometimes in dispute.
With the recent rise of Websites that actually check the accuracy of information provided in the Media, and by Politicians and others, it probably should not surprise many People that it appears that we are not living in a World where accurate information is valued so much. Most of what we see and hear via Popular Corporate Media is provided under specific Editorial Guidelines. Does that imply impartiality, or the guarantee that the information is free of Editorial Slant? Not really. There could easily be an Agenda driving the completeness and manner in which information is presented.
Politifact Guide to Fact Checking
If we consider that even Popular Corporate and Governmental Information Distribution Sources can be adulterated in their depiction of Reality, Wikipedia might be considered as viable a source as any. I personally use Wikipedia more as a starting point for any research than as a definitive source for Citation.
So, when I use a Wikipedia Article on this Blog, it should be with the understanding that, while it is no worse than any other source available, it is likely no better. We should never really simply accept information provided to us without double-checking, and should always do as much as we can to verify its accuracy. And no, the "I'm too busy" excuse does not cut it. Double-checking information is as important as any other primary task in Life.
We consume information, so we should be certain that what we consume is wholesome, and accurate. If we are fooled by those who mean to trick and harm us, we might just consider that we may not have exercised due diligence in checking on the accuracy of the information provided to us. I do not mean to blame the victim, but I am suggesting that it is better if we try to avoid becoming victims when it is wholly avoidable.
Peace and Compassion
Jeffrey
No comments:
Post a Comment