The other day – or actually it was quite a long time ago – we devoted an English period to watching this documentary entitled “The Truth According to Wikipedia”. Then, we were asked to write a 300 word response, adhering to the Neutrality Principle. Basically, not taking (or advertising) an opinion on the matter, instead just reporting what other people said about it.
Basically, the documentary showed a couple of people with very opposite views on this particular subject. There was an abundant mention of advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia. There was also a small discussion on the subject of ‘truth’. One argued that Wikipedia couldn’t hope to say they represented the truth; rather something he called ‘truthiness’.
The main opposing arguments had much to do with the fact that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be freely edited by anyone wishing, for whatever reason, to do so. According to some, this would mean that Wikipedia is unreliable. On the other hand, the people actively involved in Wikipedia argue that while there are some pages that are ‘vandalized’ every now and then, there are always people online who immediately correct this change.
Another problem was that, because it is freely editable, Wikipedia casts expertise in the wind. An anonymous editor’s change to the article written by an expert on the subject is accepted and no one will so much as give it a second thought. Also, as argued by Bob McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia differs in many ways from an actual, traditional encyclopedia. While the publishing of an encyclopedia takes many years, countless reviews and considerations of whether an article is noteworthy enough to keep, and will always try to be as accurate and factual as possible, Wikipedia’s approach with constantly changing articles that may or may not actually add anything valuable to one’s well of knowledge is something else entirely.
Praise for Wikipedia includes the fact that it makes knowledge of any individual or group of people accessible to anyone, anywhere on the globe.
In the end, it becomes apparent that the verification of information is a tricky thing anyway, and truth is hard to define, as is ‘fact’.
