Wikipedia vs. Expert-led Encyclopedias – Posting 9
Should we trust Wikipedia or an expert-led encyclopedia more? I was surprised to find the numbers of articles that speak to research demonstrating the accuracy of Wikipedia, like this one and this one. Although I’m a regular user of the site, I’m on the fence about whether we should necessarily trust it more than a expert-led encyclopedia. I actually trust both types of sources fairly equally. A few things make me confident about, and even a little partial to Wikipedia. 1. It has a number of contributors, some of whom are experts on the areas in which they contribute. 2. Wikipedia entries are reviewed and corrected when necessary. 3. Wikipedia can be easily updated, so I’m likely to get the latest information on topic. I really don’t know the process involved when posting articles in expert-led encyclopedias. I’d imagine that articles are written by “experts,” and underwent some review process, but I really don’t know. Now that I think about it, its harder for me to trust things that I don’t understand. But there is something about the credibility associated with some encyclopedias such as Britannica that makes me inherently trust them.
How could Wikipedia be better set-up to better provide accuracy? Perhaps accuracy would increase if users were required to register in order to edit material (and not just to post original articles). Contributors may be more inclined to check their fact and post accurate information if information could be tracked back to them. Making the process for locking certain sites easier could also contribute to the accuracy.
Should Wikipedia be open to everyone or just verified “experts”? Everyone, for sure! After all, what would the process of verifying experts look-like? How long would it take? Plus, there are a number of articles, like those on people, hobbies, or small towns, that probably wouldn’t even be picked-up by an expert encyclopedia.
CrazyKid38's Blog 
Leave a comment