The analog construct of research by cumbersome books with limited availability is being rendered obsolete. As corny as it sounds, a "hypermedia encyclopedia" or inevitably, "hyperpedia" is about to replace them. The old model is neither affordable, environmentally responsible or perhaps most importantly, convenient. The new model is all those things plus up-to date, in-depth and portable.
The most important question remains however, is a hyperpedia edited by just about anyone accurate? James Surowieki, author of Wisdom of Crowds sees with diverse group of contributors the intelligence of the group has often been proven to be greater than it's most intelligent contributor. Individual intelligence is second to diversity. A like-minded group even if it's made up of intelligent contributors will echo their own point-of-view and have a low probability of identifying errors in judgement or reasoning new outcomes. The traditional encyclopedia is likely to be limited to a small pedantic group by comparison to Wikipedia's army of diverse contributors. Wikipedia's open nature provides a more complete and universal point of view. Wikipedia may sometimes be inaccurate, however it time it will improve and certainly has the potential to be a repository of information far superior to an encyclopedia.
Caution is advised however in blind faith with what you find on Wikipedia. John Seigenthaler, former aide to Robert Kennedy wrote in an op-ed piece for USA Today, "For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin." He was referring to a Wikipedia article that alleged Seigenthaler was involved in John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy's murder. (1) The error was eventually corrected. A serious gaffe that warns to verify research done on Wikipedia elsewhere.
1. Growing pains for Wikipedia, from CNET
Retrieved September 9, 2009, from CNET website:
http://news.cnet.com/Growing-pains-for-Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html
No comments:
Post a Comment