LIS 488 Section 2 - Fall 2006

:Why Citizendium is less interesting than Wikipedia to me.
[Original article: Library Stuff, "Wikipedia and the Trust Factor.”]

On Oct. 17, Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia, announced the launch of Citizendium, a "citizens' compendium of everything," with the aim of creating a not only enourmous and free—which Wikipedia has become—but also reliable encyclopedia on the web. The Citizendium project homepage states that its plan is to combine public participation with expert guidance.

But what was exactly the problem of Wikipedia? For readers like me, Library Stuff introduces an article “Wikipedia and the Trust Factor,” which seems to provide plenty of answers to that question. According to this article, serious problems in Wikipedia include the following:

    * Disproportionate emphasis.
      (e.g. Negligible entries on Australian literature
       vs. plenty of information on other less important(?) topics).
    * Unreliable stuff that looks reliable.
    * Biased entries by fanatics or special interest groups.
    * Hoaxes (=fictitious or malicious articles).

Well, although I completely understand why those that this article points out as the shortcomings of Wikipedia, I have an objection. Not the objection that they are not the shortcomings of Wikipedia but the objection that Wikipedia is not Britannica. Britannica and Wikipedia serve different purposes. If I want a reliable and authoritative article about a topic, I go to Britannica. If I need a quick and easy look-up for a background about any topic, I go to Wikipedia. If I suspect that a topic that I am considering may not be grand enough to appear in Britannica, e.g. highlighers, I check Wikipedia.

Why should Wikipedia treat each entry in proportion to its importance? I would be disappointed if it does. I don’t expect Britannica to have detailed separate articles about Soju, Cheungju, Mirin, Sake, and all different types of rice wine around the world. But with Wikipedia, I wonder if someone interested in those things might have written something. And there they are, the articles about all different types of rice wine that you won’t find in Britannica. Yes, there may well be no detailed article about Australian literature in Wiki, but there will be many venerable sources other than Wiki for that.

I think that Wikipedia is great not as a general source of information per se but as a source of information that reflects the current interests and opinions of the mass. So, obviously, more concern for rice wine than for Australian literature. (The example of Australian literature is not mine but comes from the article, “Wikipedia and the Trust Factor.” I am sure Autrailian literature is very important.)

Wikipedia is an open-air market of folk-knowledge. Yes, there are hoaxes, biases, and unreliable stuff that looks reliable. But don’t we get occasionally duped and ripped off in an outdoor market? And yes, we haggle there. We don’t expect to find everything we want in an open-air market. We certainly don’t expect to find the guaranteed best-quality goods in an open-air market, either. But there are some interesting items to check out, and you can meet some interesting vendors whom you would not see at other places. You may not like the goods in the open-air market. But that is a whole different matter.