IMZ Editor

Week 6 Questions

1. What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?

Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality is straightforward and what you would expect something neutral to mean. They make their definition of neutrality simple and easy to understand because they want us editors to be neutral when writing articles on their website. Basically, Wikipedia just wants to be an encyclopedia where people around the world can come for facts and reliable information on a wide array of topics. They don’t want the information on their websites to be biased towards any one side of a topic. They also want to avoid having the editors write in an essay format and attempt to persuade the reader in a specific direction. Wikipedia just wants to present all the major and minor details of a topic and allow the reader to make their own opinion based on what they have read.    

2. What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? 

Wikipedia is an impactful source of information because it is such a large collection of useful facts. Wikipedia contains information on a wide range of topics that should meet the interests of a typical reader. Also, these articles are usually well developed because they are created by people interested in the topic. In addition, all of this information can easily and quickly be viewed as long as you have an internet connection. People all around the world can now confidently look up information at any time of the day.

A limit of Wikipedia could be its strict policy on what type of sources can be used to gather information for the website. For example, Wikipedia avoids using sources directly related to the subject because the information might be biased. However, for a small company, this might be the only source of information on the topic. Therefore, Wikipedia won’t be able to present information on this company until a reliable, neutral author publishes information on the company.

Another limit is that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page. This means that there is a risk of false information being published on the website. And this false information is visible to the public until someone notices and removes it. Also, editing wars can occur between individuals when they disagree on what should go on a Wikipedia article.

3. On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?

Sources that are considered unreliable by Wikipedia include blog posts, press releases, self-published works, or sources directly related to the subject. Basically, these types of sources are more likely to push an agenda or a certain viewpoint and Wikipedia doesn’t want to influence their readers in any way. The problem this creates is that it limits the amount of sources that can be used on Wikipedia articles, which in turn, makes it more difficult to find sources. We are also missing out on information that could very well be true and useful for the readers.    

4. If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, its information wouldn’t be as vast or in-depth as it is today. This would be due to the fact that it would be harder to acquire reliable, neutral sources. Today’s advancements in technology and communication allow for the fast spread of information on a global scale. Information can quickly be gathered after a few minutes on the Internet. You can be in Miami and call someone in Japan to ask them for details about a recent Tsunami straight from the source. Information just wouldn’t have been able to flow as quickly 100 years ago. In saying this, I assume that it will be a lot easier to gather information 100 years in the future. Wikipedia will probably have information on nearly any topic you could think of.