Wikipedia

Ah the world of Wikipedia! Such a vast amount of knowledge that is nearly the same as finding an answer on google, yet in almost every teacher or professor I have ran into since high school has explained that it is not a reliable source. After reading the articles, however, I discovered that although the wiki site is able to be edited by anyone, it has virtually the same errors as the Briticanna encyclopedia...I couldn't believe it!

I have used Wikipedia before, as I'm sure most people have. In my experience, I have found that not totally relying on the website, but referring to it can be extremely helpful. It is very similar to googleing a term and is great at just giving a basic definition. At other times I use it to brush up on specific terms that I may have heard of but either forgot or was never really clear on what they meant.

Overall, however, can Wikipedia trump a true experts point of view on a certain subject? In my opinon, and after reading Lessig and Schiff's articles regarding this shared economy, I believe it can go both ways; allow me to explain. When it comes to "conquering expertise", I think it is hard for volunteer editors to come up with a completely valid answer on a subject they aren't totally familiar with. But to play devil's advocate, one expert verses many editors may produce a more wholistic answer as opposed to just one persons opinion.

For example, Lessig talks about how journalists go out to get a story....now each individual journalist is a so-called expert at doing their job, however all of those individuals perceive things in their own way and once all those ideas are combined (within Wikipedia) I believe the internet source can then be more valuable to someone who is trying to figure out the story. In this sense I would say two heads are definitely better than one and there is a possibility to "conquer the expert" in this type of situation.

On the other hand, those editors could have only heard a portion of the story that they got from the journalists. They were most likely not at the scene of where the news story took place, and some significant information could be left out unintentionally. In this particular case, I would say that expertise could NOT be conquered. Either way people are gonna believe what they want!

And the only reason people believe what they want, is because they are exposed to so many different types and sources of free information each and every day. We are constantly bombarded with messages that tell us what to think, how to dress, where to buy clothes, who to look up to, when to eat something....the messages are never-ending. The funny thing is, most of these portals of information are, as Bilton explains, handed out freely by people who give up a few seconds or minutes to share something with friends and strangers alike. Giving up a few seconds to post something on a public social network is like second nature anymore and I feel as though many people do it without even being aware. I know I am guilty of it! I post a link to a friends wall and comment, "Check this out!" All just for them to see, not for money, but just to share.

A shared economy is helpful to distribute information and help people understand what is going on around us. Although unintentional much of the time, still very beneficial!