Our other mags
Main Guidomedia index

Opinion

It’s win-win with Wikipedia 5 September

My eleven-year-old came home in a panic today. Her Grade Five ‘Stolen Generation’ project is due tomorrow and the school has banned Wikipedia. It seems the online encyclopaedia is no longer credible. By Terry Cantwell

What was John Howard thinking? Thanks to his idiotic dabbling in cyberspace, I now have to stay up half the night digging through my crusty old Britannica. It’s not as if my princess is going to search for the information she needs in a book. “Books! That’s what Harry Potter nerds and oldies do”, she tells me.

For the last five years schoolkids across the globe have logged onto Wikipedia with uncharacteristic gusto. After decades of failed literacy initiatives, an unlikely source, Wikipedia, has children reading again. Before the online marvel, many kids believed books were what grandad used to prop up his wobbly kitchen table. But now, kids everywhere have rediscovered the world. Everything from Astronomy to zoology is cool – and it all comes with pictures and sound.

Last week Mr Howard’s spin-doctors did a good job of lowering national literacy levels by secretly editing unflattering Wikipedia entries about their boss. Now schools are set to ban Wikipedia because they fear it’s an unreliable information source.

Mr Howard is clueless about new media. Just like when he instructed his queen of spin, Helen Coonan to issue parents with free, easily disabled, cyber-censorship software, Mr Howard has once more displayed an unhealthy obsession with controlling what kids might find on the internet.

This wouldn’t be so bad if he had thought of it himself. For over two years US government officials, from the State Department to the CIA, have been ‘putting the record straight’ on Wikipedia. (Which is a bit hypocritical since the CIA’s Wikipedia entry is one of the few that the public is unable to edit.) Even Kevin Rudd thinks its ok to edit online entries. This interference hasn’t straightened things out. It’s just damaged the credibility of the world’s largest encyclopaedia. 

What a pity. Wikipedia is a revelation. Sure, most users know it isn’t 100% accurate, but we are prepared to turn a blind eye. After all, it’s win-win with Wikipedia. The kids love it, it relieves teachers’ stress, and parents can watch Big Brother in peace while their high-achieving plagiarist son copies and pastes his English essay.

Wikipedia has endured a lot of disapproval. Critics, such as the Washington Post’s Frank Ahrens, say it’s too easy to edit, the sources aren’t verifiable, and the entries are often inaccurate. He said, “Unlike, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia has no formal peer review for its articles. They may be written by experts or insane crazy people. Or worse, insane crazy people with an agenda – and Internet access”.

But, despite wikipedia’s failings, and Mr Howard’s tinkering with the edit button, a Nature Journal of Science study found that Wikipedia was just as accurate as Britannica.  The study concluded that Wikipedia averages 2.92 mistakes per article compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s 3.86 mistakes.

Wikipedia creator, Jimmy Wales is pleased with the Nature study’s findings. "I think it provides, for us, a great counterpoint to the press coverage we've gotten recently, because it puts the focus on the broader quality and not just one article", he said.

Wales believes some people are overreacting to Wikipedia’s bad publicity, but he isn’t too upset. "I always laugh when somebody tells high school kids not to use it at all. That's like telling them not to listen to rock music. Whether it should be something you should use in a paper, that's another issue”, he said.

Some of the Wikipedia’s harshest critics are its users. In an ongoing collaborative essay Why Wikipedia isn’t so great, over twenty Wikipedians have listed hundreds of reasons why the encyclopaedia is flawed. They say: Wikipedia is open to vandalism, its’ too subjective, and it has no management structure.
However, Wikipedia’s accuracy is not the issue.

Wikipedia is a work in progress – a post-modern experiment rather than a literary canon. The encyclopedia is written and monitored by users who quickly correct errors. So while Australian politicians, the CIA, and the State Department are free to write what they like about themselves, they will be discovered and they will look silly.

I just wish someone would tell my daughter’s teacher that Wikipedia isn’t so bad, because I’m finding it really hard to cut and paste stuff from the Britannica.

Wikipedia

News.com: Nature Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

USA Today: Wikipedia is accurate

Random Ratiocination: Is Wikipedia criticism justified?

dcubed blogspot: Changes say it all (Wikipedia Criticism)

The Good Experience: Jimmy Wales interview

VNUNET: Britannica lashes out at Wikipedia comparison study

Computerworld: US Senator: It’s time to ban Wikipedia from schools

ZDNET: John Howard’s team revise history on Wikipedia

Washington Post: Frank Ahrens: Death by Wikipedia

Return to top

Use this tool to search our site or the web.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.guidomedia.com www.allflying.com www.allwomensport.com

Free Newsletter
Try our newsletter. Every week or so we email a free summary of media trends stories and jobs. See our subscription page.