untangling_the_web

DID: 4046925
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFeR eFFlOIAL I:ISE ONbY
accuracy of its science entries.'74 From there it has escalated, with refutations and
calls for retraction from Encylopaedia Britannica and heated responses from Nature.
Wikipedia itself has steered clear of this particular fray; however, it does attempt to
respond to criticism and has a page on its site for common criticisms. It also
addresses issues such as copyright, vandalism, and authorship.
"So what's the bottom line? The same as it's always been. When performing
thorough research, be it Internet-based or otherwise, the onus is always on the
researcher to check sources, validity, and authority. The speed and relative ease at
which changes can be made to a wiki, while good for consensus correction and
corroboration, are not so good for measured and thoughtful debate. A number of
articles in Wikipedia are sourced, but many are not, and just because it's on the
Internet, does not mean it is true. In addition, merely because it's free does not
mean Wikipedia is more suspect and Britannica is more reliable. There is an
argument to be made for being so passionate about a topic that you feel the need to
share that passion with the world. But one man's passion is also another's conceit.
There is a counter to every argument, a rebuttal to every claim.
"Like it or not, wikis and wiki behaviors have entered the mainstream, just like blogs
and MySpace and the iPod. Love it or hate it, if you are involved in open source
research you need to know about wikis." 75
The Wikipedia Itself: The Good, the Bad, and the Dubious
As Diane White clearly indicates, there are many, many wikis now available on the
Internet, and their numbers continue to increase at present. I want to focus on
Wikipedia itself because it remains the center of the wiki universe and thus far
shows no signs of decline. Many Wikipedia critics mourn the decline of traditional
encyclopedias because they are thinking of an encyclopedia such as Britannica in its
current form, that is, "the most authoritative source of...information and ideas," the
"definitive source of knowledge.',76 According to Tom Panelas, Britannica's Director
of Corporate Communications, "We can't cover as many things as they [Wikipedia]
do but we wouldn't even try to. What they do is very different from what we do. We
don't have an article on extreme ironing, and we shouldn't.':"
74 Jim Giles, "Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head," Nature, 14 December 2005 (last updated
28 March 2006), (14 November
2006).
75 Diane White, "Wikis and the Wikipedia," The WorthWhile Web, May 2006,
.
76 Paula Berinstein, "Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kids Are All Right (And So's the Old Man),"
Information Today, March 2006, (11
September 2006).
77 Berinstein.
204 UNCLASSIFIEDIfFeR eFFlCllIcL liSE er4LY