Wikipedia

Yes, you can even edit the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia.

In the second grade, my school's library bought a brand new edition of the Children's Britannica encyclopedia. Needing space in the already crowded library, the librarian turned to the teachers and asked if they knew of any students that could use a slightly outdated set. I was the lucky student and I remember poring over the pages, mesmerized by the complexity of the world (and the pretty pictures; yay, children's editions). In the dozens of reports I would write in the following years, I referenced the encyclopedia often. But as I grew older and picked newer or more complex topics, I began turning to the just burgeoning internet for sources.

Last month, Wikipedia celebrated its tenth anniversary. This didn't strike me as all that special in the grand scheme of things until I thought about how extensively Wikipedia has impacted my life (and I mean that with all due hyperbole).

If I ever need general information about a notable topic, I type "wiki [topic]" into Google and poof! information. You might ask, "How often can you really need information?" Often. I'm an inquisitive person. I like to know everything I can about everything I can. There is a reason that that 2^nd grade encyclopedia set enraptured me so.

Wikipedia has not only replaced the use of the classic encyclopedia, but also vastly improved on the concept. Classical encyclopedias have several problems: they are expensive, quickly outdated, and though the set of books is enormous, each article in the greatly abridged collection is cripplingly brief. By comparison, Wikipedia is free, continually updated, and contains (as of the time of this posting) 3,563,772 articles in English alone. The articles vary in length from stubs only a few words in length (see  2-Amino-4-hydroxy-6-pyrophosphoryl-methylpteridine) to expansive pages that cover topics in great detail (such as the article for India which is equivalent in length to a 20-page paper not including the extensive photos, diagrams, and charts). More importantly, the articles are replete with links to other articles that provide context and supplemental information.

It's this last part that can lead to long afternoons of following wiki-links to completely unforeseen and undesired knowledge. "Why am I reading about the proposed extension of the D.C. Metro?" [opens browser history] "Oh yeah..." [Santa Barbara→Flag of Santa Barbara→Flags of places in the US→Flag of Washington, D.C.→Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C.→Washington, D.C.→Washington Metro→Silver Line]. They have even made a game of trying to connect random articles à la six degrees of separation (or Kevin Bacon, whatever floats your boat).

There has been both adulation and derision over the writing and editing process on Wikipedia. In 2006, TIME named "You" the Person of the Year due to the pervasive use of the internet by average citizens as "a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter." The first example mentioned in the article is "the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia."

However, the ease of editing and anonymity of contributers has given Wikipedia a black mark as a reliable source. A common early lesson for any paper-writing student is that Wikipedia should never find its way into a bibliography. At best, they are told, an article can be used as a starting point and the references cited by the article can point them in the right direction. I think this stigma should change. Just because a publisher has a traditional author and editor, does not make it better than one with hundreds of contributers and volunteer editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be used as such. If I were writing a paper about WWII, I would want far better and more in-depth sources than Wikipedia articles, but if I'm writing a paper about Seattle in the 1940's and need to look up general information about WWII, then an encyclopedia is exactly where I should turn.

That said, there are some legitimate concerns about bias among contributers. Specifically, a study was recently released showing that only about 13% of Wikipedia's contributers are female. This is a problem in many online ventures, though no one has a definite answer as to why. One theory is that women steer clear so as to avoid conflict because mutual contributions require dialog between authors, and that dialog can get quite heated on disputed topics. I think that is short changing the self-confidence of most women and overestimating the amount of heated exchange that is going on regarding the vast majority of the 3.5 million articles on Wikipedia, but I'll leave that for psychologists to dispute.

I contribute to Wikipedia. I only have a few dozen edits and most of those are quite minor (fixing links, spelling mistakes, etc.), but I love that when reading an article, if I find something that is inaccurate, or poorly worded, I have the power to change it. Instantly and for everybody. I'm working on my first original article, for the Ithaca neighborhood known as Collegetown (Hey, if Noleta gets an article then so should Collegetown). One of the annoying things I've found while writing for Wikipedia is that you can't write from personal experience. Every fact must have a reference, but that gets tricky when there are few books or webpages about your subject matter.

The above is a conversation between myself and a bureaucrat regarding an attempt I made to change my username.

One of the odder things I've found while contributing is that all communication between contributers is done by editing talk pages(see above). What I mean by editing is that rather than submitting a comment or sending a message, a contributer must edit the page itself. This requires ample trust that the contributer doesn't just edit the page so as to delete all opposing views. Of course, with articles and talk pages alike, an unabridged edit history is always maintained so any damage can be undone, traced to the offending party, and that user (or IP address) can be suspended or banned.

The concept of Wikipedia is amazing. Compile as much general knowledge as possible, free of fees or ads, with only the help of volunteer contributers. It is the world as described by the average person. Wikipedia (or the world, for that matter) is made better by the hundreds of millions of individually insubstantial contributions that, when added up, make for a vastly improved whole. Despite its inherent permeability to both the scrupulous and malicious among us, Wikipedia has prevailed mostly untainted, showing that there are far more people doing good than ill. It has shown that trust in the general public is not always misplaced. And we could use more such signs.