Wikipedia

I personally use Wikipedia nearly every single day. I can’t tell you how many times I hear a word or term in a conversation that I am unfamiliar with and write it down in hope to later remember to look up what it means. Also in my class lectures and readings, there are often terms that I have no idea what they mean, so I do the exact same. Now, with data plans on phones, we have the ability to use the Internet nearly anywhere we so choose, and that means we have even more immediate access to this information archive. I even use Wikipedia when I hear of a new band and want to get a quick biography on them or find out past music the artists have been a part of, and it has actually significantly expanded my music library, knowledge, and even taste. For any sort of research project in school, Wikipedia is a good way to get a clear background check on the topic, even if many teachers and professors don’t allow it as a “legitimate” source. I am an avid user of the popular website “Digg” which allows users to either “dig” an article if they like it, or “bury” it if they don’t. The more digs a webpage gets, the higher it is on the home website. There are often Wikipedia articles submitted, and I tried to find one that I read earlier in the summer. It dealt with how Wikipedia has been declared a “legitimate” website as far as its information goes and even has better and more complete information than most medical journals and archives. The only drawback is that it is sometimes written poorly and can be tough to get through the weak prose. While searching for the article on the website, I even came across an article about how Wal Mart lobbyists have been fighting Wikipedia to keep their page looking positive. In fact, even though Wikipedia maintains a “neutral point of view” policy, the Wal Mart page was originally highly critical of the corporation, but has slowly shifted to a very positive perspective due to Wal Mart’s efforts. This shows the power that Wikipedia has on the Internet and the world, for a giant corporation like Wal Mart is even concerned about the contents of its webpages.

In Lessig and Schiffs shared economy, Wikipedia can conquer expertise. It does this by having a huge collective knowledge that has the high potential to be void of error. I don’t know many people who never think they are wrong, for I think everyone ALWAYS has the ability to be fallible with the information they perceive to remain true in their brains. There are times when I may be arguing with a friend about a particular fact, and we almost always will check the fact on Wikipedia. Of course, we both believe we are right, but we know that the information on Wikipedia will go further than either of our knowledge. Of course, we don’t have INSTANT access to Wikipedia/the Internet at most points in our day the way we do to our own brains and knowledge, so in that way it is of course better to have expertise, but if we could hypothetically have that instant access to the archive the way we do to our own knowledge, it would hands down be an advantage.

Bilton’s piece didn’t surprise me in the fact that there are so many people willing to share information on the Internet these days. As a student and young member of society, I am constantly connected to the Internet, and have seen first hand the way that this information sharing takes place. Any given Youtube video with sufficient hits has thousands upon thousands of user comments, all of which are discussing their own interpretations and perspectives. People are willing to share this information at the drop of a hat, shown by Bilton stating, “We’ve reduced the fear of missing something important because we share “controlled serendipity” with others and they with us.” As he says it, sharing has become a reflex action as we are surfing the web and come across an interesting video, blog, or article. I can’t think of how many times I have posted a video on a friend’s wall or an article on the dad’s wall, just so I can share this information with them and have a shared experience.