Wikipedia and the Collective Hive Mind?

devv_null asks: "This morning on my drive to work, I was listening to the latest podcast of the Philosophers Zone. The topic of the program was 'Is a free market in ideas a good idea?'. It featured author and speaker Jaron Lanier, who in May published an article Digital Maoism. He highlighted Wikipedia as an example of the one of the worst kinds of 'collective intelligence' and using the 'wisdom of the crowd' to average facts about the world and include them in a massive, lifeless document. Being a habitual Wikipedia user, I could only disagree with his take on the web enterprise. While it shouldn't be considered the ultimate source of knowledge on the web, I think it's ideal in many cases to use as a starting point. Apparently, Lanier thinks a Google search results page is better." So, what is your take on this issue?

Comments

They both have their place ...

[xmas2003]

Since Google simply returns what it consider is the most relevant result (but does zippo fact checking), I use both when I'm interested in something. The classic example is "miserable failure" where Google's #1 results is George Bush's WhiteHouse page ... what many people don't know is the #2 result is Michael Moore's Home page ... I'll let you decide which is the more "accurate" miserable failure ... but at least in this example, Wiki has a great explanation

Hard to take Wiki too seriously

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Wikipedia is more of an outlet for fan boys to pay homage to their various hobbies/heros/whatever. Which in itself can be an incredible resource if say you are interested in a dissertation on the origins of Robocop. However, if you are interested in Voyager space progam you best venture elsewhere.

Re:great selling point there

[ptaff]

For more critical needs, where research time needs to be low and source accountability needs to be high, beginning at a "starting point" is not an option.

I know Wikipedia's servers are not always as quick as we'd want, but still, 30 seconds is not a lot of time and might give you precious pointers and keywords for further research; cross-checking data is a lot easier than finding new information. How many times have you googled and refined your searches using result data? bingo.

Re:wiki bashing

[cfeedback]

Point of course being, USE WIKIPEDIA AS A STARTING POINT. It's amazing if you want to learn basic facts about things - who the fuck Jethro Tull really was, etc., but always check references. Wikipedia is quite thorough in its referencing, but a proper researcher should be more thorough. Of course, it's better than most political non-fiction out there now, anyway.

A starting point for infinite knowledge, if you ask me. Where else can you begin by looking up a movie, get sidetracked into the crusades, and end up reading a fascinating listing of every Star Trek ship class that has ever existed, including non-canonical sources?

Its so much fun I end up reading for hours, and usually have 20 tabs open by the time I think, "Enough is enough!" Wikipedia just may be the start of a higher consciousness.

Missing option: Everything2

[Belgand]

Personally I've been a big fan of E2 for many, many years. Sure Wikipedia has some advantages (typos and small bits can easily be changed, it's easier to update and modify something when someone leaves the site and never comes back, it has links and images), but E2 manages to do away with many of the disadvantages as well. Users individually own their writeups so unless an editor changes something (and I've never seen it happen aside from very light proof-reading or wholesale, and typically justified deletion) it's not going to be changed just because someone comes along and disagrees with you. Individual pieces tend to take on much more of a personal voice rather than being the bland, monotone of multiple users slowly working away at something over time. If something is wrong it's likely corrected by someone else. Multiple views are presented on topics giving them greater depth and perspective. Finally errors and poor writing tend to be worked out through a process of survival of the fittest. As better writeups are entered into the system they tend to push out weaker, older ones creating a constant evolutionary process. While Wikipedia evolves unless significant forking is done it tends to be much more convergant while E2 tends to be parallel or divergent most of the time.

Do I still use Wikipedia? Yeah, on occasion I'll want images or more information than I find listed on E2, but I typically use Wikipedia as a sort of study guide and an aide to doing further searching. E2 tends to function much better as a primer.

Pop Culture

[IndustrialComplex]

I use Wikipedia as my pop culture dictionary. If there is a term I'm not aware of, or a movement, I can check it out there.

Topics I would check on Wikipedia:

Who was the Green Lantern Rough statistical facts or histories Basic guidelines for brewing beer. or learning the terminology.

Things I would not rely on Wikipedia for:

Anything that I would want to be correct when presented to the public.

Wikipedia is basically my electronic Guiness book of world records. Nice for trivia, risky for research.

Re:Once again

[Intron]

"Wikipedia is wrong MORE than it's right."

Please cite an example article in Wikipedia and a reliable source showing that it is wrong.