Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia"
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| + | [[Category:Corporations]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Websites]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Information Ethics]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Services]] | ||
([[Topics|back to index]]) | ([[Topics|back to index]]) | ||
Revision as of 05:55, 19 December 2011
Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia whose entries are created, edited, and maintained by anonymous users. Volunteers around the world contribute to the website's 19.8 million articles (in 282 different languages).
Contents
Purpose and Goals
Wikipedia exists to provide a globally available, free, and encyclopedic resource for the world's population in their native language. It is created by the people for the people.
History
Wikipedia began as a subset of another free encyclopedia project, Nupedia, in early 2000. Nupedia was intended to be a free online English based encyclopedia whose articles were compiled and constructed by leading experts and formally reviewed before being included in the project. Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales formally founded Wikipedia in January 2001.
Founders
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched in January 2001. As the project grew in size, Wales became the projects spokesperson and promoter. Larry Sanger began his wiki career as editor-in-chief of Nupedia, then became chief organizer of Wikipedia from 2001-2002. As one of Wikipedia's community leaders, he helped to establish some of the original policies of Wikipedia.
Technology
Wikipedia's software wiki was developed by Ward Cunningham. The website provides a format that allows for creation, editting and linking of pages by many different users. Wikipedia relies on opensource software for it to function. There are a variety of bots that operate within Wikipedia that are responsible for "patrolling" the online environment in order to carry out tasks such as correcting minor edits and spelling errors and identifying copyrighted material.
Ethical Dilemmas
The credibility of Wikipedia articles has been called into question since the website's existence. There has been concern that the anonymous identity of Wikipedia's contributors has allowed misinformation to be printed through undesirable edits, poor quality of writing, and malicious intent. Under a pseudonym, editors are deindividualized and less likely to follow the unbiased writing style of Wikipedia.
In anticipation of these potential threats, Wikipedia utilizes two functions to maintain a neutral site and to patrol the site. The first is through a collective knowledge by monitoring and contributing to a wide variety of articles. The second is through computer bots that monitor the site for negative contributions to articles. These bots patrol the site and identify random inserts and unreliable information, and will also restrict certain IP addresses from contributing after a history of destructive contributions. On controversial articles, new users are not allowed to edit them until they have used the site for an extended use of time and have proved themselves to be unbiased editor.
All articles are equipped with a page for discussion. Consensus of editors is important to the Wikipedia process and is how articles remain unbiased with accurate, up to date information. When there are disputes over information in an article, rather than people editing and reediting every few minutes, issues are discussed on the talk pages.[1] This allows editors to collaborate and try to persude the other sides of the arguements to agree with their position. If concensus cannot be reached through discussion, there are different options that wikipedia takes. First, they will bring in a third opinion to sort out the arguement. If that doesnt work, there may be administrative intervence. Those editors may be blocked from editting a certain page and administrators decide what edits are allowed under Wikipedia policy.
Moreover, Zittrain's discourse on Lessons of Wikipedia serves to acknowledge the individual and communal ethical conflicts Wikipedia struggles with. While the concern for users under anonymity abusing their position by editing articles maliciously is justified, Zittrain offers several reasons why over the long-term haul, users will act in a way that benefits the overall good of Wikipedia. The overall ideology of Zittrain's thoughts are characterized well in this short passage:"While the certainty of authority-sourced reward and punishment is lessened, we might predict two opposing results. The first is chaos: remove security guards and stores will be looted. The second is basic order maintained, as people choose to respect particular limits in the absence of enforcement. Such acting to reinforce a social fabric may still be due to a form of self-interest - game and norm theorists offer reasons why people help one another in terms that draw on longer-term mutual self-interest - but it may also be because people have genuinely decided to treat others' interests as their own...Thus, without the traffic sign equivalent of pages of rules and regulations, students who apprentice to generalized codes of honor may be prone to higher levels of honesty in academic work - and benefit from a greater sense of camraderie. More generally, order may remain when people see themselves as a part of a social system - a group of people - more than utter strangers but less than friends - with some overlap in outlook and goals." [2]pg. 128
A sense of order and peace is maintained when people invest themselves and their time into a social system or in this case, a wealth of knowledge consolidated into an organized entity named Wikipedia. A lack of regulation in cyberspace such as Wikipedia does not always necessarily translate into a lack of order. This is because the motivation for an individual to seek personal gains or enjoyment out of malicious editing is reduced when the community or group presence is strong enough to persuade individuals of the significance of maintaining and creating a system beneficial for the greater good. In terms of Wikipedia, the wealth of knowledge contained in articles is enough to convince its community of users to maintain its ethics, accuracy, and integrity. Since users are invested in a superordinate goal that trumps their individual goals, Wikipedia benefits from having a tight-knit community committed to Wikipedia's growth and excellence as an online presence.
See Also
External Links
References
- ↑ Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus
- ↑ Zittrain, Jonathan. The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Print.
