Question of Reliability

Wikipedia is a site that I personally have never really used for several reasons; the main one being reliability. Throughout my years in high school I was always told that I can use any online source EXCEPT Wikipedia. So not only did I not trust the site, none of my teachers did either. For those of you who don’t know, Wikipedia is a site that anyone can add/edit/remove information from. This is also known as “mass creativity or peer production”, which basically means a bunch of people working together to create something (Van Dijk, Neiborg). There is a very wide variety of topics/posts on Wikipedia which is why most people use it to get some basic information. I will admit, I might go to Wikipedia if I need a quick name or quick idea of where something is. But I certainly do not rely on or trust information, statistics, data or dates that I find there.

            When I am looking up information online for a project, reference, or even just for curiosity, I want fact, not opinion; I want the definitive, not something I have to validate. As a woman pursuing a career in business, there are already a great many obstacles standing between me and success. The last thing I or any other woman needs is an information source that is suspect, unreliable or biased. Wikipedia writers want to help others gain knowledge on a certain topic, which is fine, but that is not the goal for all writers. Some of the people who post on Wikipedia are actually purposely posting false, incorrect or misleading information. I have no idea what purpose these people think it serves, but they do it. There are “instances [that] have occurred in which rumors and falsities have been planted on Wikipedia articles” (Royal, Kapila). There have been studies done, and surveys taken that continue to prove that there is substantial information on Wikipedia that is not correct and has no place there.

Another reason I don’t like to use Wikipedia is because some of the entries are biased. Now this is understandable considering it is just someone posting to the extent of their knowledge. But when I am doing research, I want to see both sides of the story and know everything about the topic. It is obvious that people will post about what they know (most of the time), so this means “the more common or popular terms had the most detailed coverage” (Royal, Kapila). This is fine, except that if it is a true encyclopedia then all topics will have fairly equal coverage. I need facts and objective insight. I do not need to be referencing a source that is suspect. The consequences of relying on a suspect source is even more pronounced for a woman striving to achieve what comes so easily to their male counterpart.

            I don’t mean to be putting Wikipedia down or anything, but I’m just not a fan. One upside to the current state of this site is that at the bottom of posts, there are usually links to other sites where the writer obtained their information. This is helpful if you want a really specific topic and don't really know where to start. The links do make it seem like the people who posted know what they are talking about and are just summarizing/paraphrasing what someone else had said. But as I mentioned previously, I personally am not comfortable with using the facts found on the site without going through a time consuming validation process.

Something that Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, did say is that he is going to try and create a means of stabilizing, posts. This would happen when the post has a certain amount of input. It would help verify and keep the post constant. I think this is a good idea because with the amount of people posting a limit could be very beneficial. Too much information can cause repeats, contradiction, and argumentation. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, it isn't a contest; it is about disseminating information. 

Wales did mention how he "is not so much interested in checking articles with experts as getting them to write the articles in the first place," (Giles). This continues to demonstrate that information isn't really being checked before being posted and that to the people in charge it doesn't really matter. Now I could be the only one who views it this way, but even after my readings I still do not trust Wikipedia, nor do I consider it a reliable and objective source. I have worked hard to get to where I am in the development of my career in business. I am certainly not prepared to hang my future prospects on a source of information that is at best, suspect. My personal suggestion is that developers find a way to ensure that information being processed has a means of validation or at least be cross referenced. Another way is if there were people who would edit or proof read the information being posted. It really just comes down to this; if I knew there was a process in place to validate the information being posted I would feel more inclined to use Wikipedia as a resource. 

But who am I? Just another woman posting their opinion on the Internet.

Shannon