You used the word authoritative--I did not (please note). I said it was objective, and I do believe that is the case because anyone with Internet access can participate. If any statements are disputed, those are duly noted. The entire project is transparent, representing the synthesis of everyone's knowledge. How democratic!! Isn't that what America is all about, anyway?
For those who have an ACTUAL interest in wikipedia (not simply challenging everything I say), here is more information:
Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
As you read and idly edit Wikipedia, at some point, you may ask yourself: "Just why is Wikipedia so great? What accounts for its overwhelming splendidness?" In order to answer this question, users have written some explanations and arguments on this page.
Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. Anyone can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names).
Wikipedia has almost no bureaucracy; one might say it has none at all. But it isn't just the "Wild West." There are social pressures and community norms, but perhaps that by itself doesn't constitute bureaucracy, because anybody can just go in and make any changes they feel like making. And other people generally like it when they do. So there aren't bottlenecks; anyone can come in and make progress on the project at any time. The project is self-policing. Editorial oversight is more or less continuous with writing, which seems, again, very efficient. :-)
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy makes it an excellent place to gain a quick understanding of controversial topics. Want a good overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict but only got 10 minutes to spare? Wondering what all the fuss is about in Kashmir or what the pro/con arguments are about stem cell research? Wikipedia is a great place to start.
While traditional encyclopedias might be revised annually, Wikipedia is revised hundreds of times an hour. That's a big deal if your interest is in current affairs, recent science, pop culture, or any other field that changes rapidly.
On Wikipedia, there are no required topics and no one is making assignments. That means that anyone can find part of the encyclopedia they're interested in, and add to it immediately (if they can do better than what's already there). This increases motivation and keeps things fun.
Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use.
Articles seem to be getting steadily more polished. Articles seem to have a tendency to get gradually better and better, particularly if there is one person working on an article with reasonable regularity (in that case, others have a tendency to help). There are some articles we can all point to that started out life mediocre at best and are now at least somewhat better than mediocre. Now suppose this project lasts for many years and attracts many more people, as seems perfectly reasonable to assume. Then how could articles not be burnished to a scintillating luster?
Wikipedia seems to attract highly intelligent, articulate people (with the exception of repeat vandals) with a little (or a lot of) time on their hands. Moreover, there are some experts at work here. Over time, the huge amount of solid work done by hobbyists and dilettantes can (and no doubt will) be hugely improved upon by experts. This both makes Wikipedia a pleasant intellectual community (or so it seems to some) and gives us some confidence that the quality of Wikipedia articles will, in time, if not yet, be high.
Furthermore, because these highly intelligent, and may I say undoubtedly attractive people, come from all over the world, Wikipedia can give the reader a genuinely "world view".
Wikipedia is growing at a dizzying rate. This rate of growth has been progressively increasing: as of August 2003, the average growth rate now exceeds 250 articles per day in the English version alone, and over 700 articles per day across the entire project. And the word is only slowly getting out about Wikipedia.
We have a slowly-growing source of traffic--and therefore more contributors, and therefore (very possibly, anyway) an increasing rate of article-writing--from Google and Google-using search engines like AOL, Netscape, and a9. The greater the number of Wikipedia articles, the greater the number of people will link to us, and therefore the higher the rankings (and numbers of listings) we'll have on Google. Hence, on Wikipedia "the rich (will) get richer"; or "if we build it, they will come" and in greater and greater numbers.
Our likelihood of success seems encouragingly high. On January 23, 2003 we reached 100,000 articles, and we have recently passed 1,000,000 articles. If Wikipedia hits it big, or even simply continues as it has been, which seems plausible, then all potential articles might be covered ... eventually. It also seems rather likely that there will always be a lot of mediocre stuff. But it's possible--how likely we'd be able to tell after more months of experience--that articles would just gradually improve until they were polished to a Nupedia polish. We've already seen many instances of this.
To use an extended metaphor, Wikipedia is very fertile soil for knowledge. As encyclopedia articles grow, they can attract gardeners who will weed and edit them, while the discussion between community members provides light to help their growth. By consistent effort and nourishment, Wikipedia articles can become beautiful and informative.
Wikipedia is not paper, and that is a good thing.
Where else can you get lovely articles on such-and-such podunk town or so-and-so bizarre hobby written by actual residents/practitioners? (Of course, some view this as a curse.)
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, repeatedly mentions in his book "Weaving the Web" that the web has grown into a medium that is much easier to read than to edit. He envisaged the web would be much more of a collaborative medium than it currently is, and that the browser should also function as an editor. Wiki-based sites are closer to his vision.
Wikipedia is free. Many online encyclopedias are not.
It's simply a good-natured website, isn't it?
You can almost copy-paste stuff from it and use it for essays. And then slightly change it.
en.wikipedia.org |
