Wikipedia: The Secret Weapon of the Internet

Wikipedia. Love it or hate it this infamous Internet resource is a huge part of our social lives and the researching and sharing culture that we are constantly participating in; both on and off technology. It is an instant information simplifier, gap filler, and detail expander, but we never really take it seriously beyond this point due to the Wikipedia stereotype that has been created in our academic culture. Regardless of how “dependable” a source we think Wikipedia is, or have been told it is by every teacher we have ever had since Middle School, it has hidden talents and that make it more valid and helpful than one may think. 

However, it also has an extensive list of biases and controversies that make it more dramatic and technical than at first search. So dramatic in fact that there are even Wiki editing wars. Yeah, intense. Thanks to Wiki- lovers, haters, questioners, and defenders who have taken the time to research and discuss what really goes on behind the scenes of this Internet powerhouse, we are able to take a closer look at what Wikipedia really is and how it is actually used.

Before my eyes were opened to the truth of Wikipedia I thought in a similar way about it that I am sure most of us do; that it is a go-to source for uncomplicated answers for uncomplicated topics, but nothing more, because that is just too much commitment. I felt as if it were impossible for Wikipedia to give anything more than that, but that was only because that was all I had ever heard about it. In actuality, Wikipedia has a solid, interactive editing system. It is a hotspot for various people interested in almost every topic you can think of, from multiple perspectives, who take a stand every day to make sure they are creating a change on the Internet via Wikipedia, or to make sure their page isn’t changed by someone else whose views they view as invalid or just plain wrong.

Even Wikipedia’s Twitter page shows how interchangeable it is able to be in the lives of those that use it; both simple and complex. It mass shares out mundane facts about history as well as article links to more in depth topics that take more brain power .

On this day in 1792: The National Convention declared France a republic, thereby abolishing absolute monarchy. https://t.co/ZYbggxi8U3

— Wikipedia (@Wikipedia) September 21, 2016

"Citations needed for the sum of all human knowledge": slides of my #COASP8 talk (Technology & Innovation panel) https://t.co/KFJC89wWEb

— Dario Taraborelli (@ReaderMeter) September 21, 2016

A more negative example of this is when the NYPD was caught attempting to rewrite articles, and even completely delete articles altogether, on police brutality in order to shed a softer and more inaccurate light on them as individuals and as an organization. “Public relations is one thing, but having staff go into Wikipedia to change the written narrative on police brutality is altogether different,” (King). This organization is obviously viewing Wikipedia as a social and informational platform that sincerely matters for it could potentially have huge affect on their reputation and image. “Computer users identified by capital as working on the NYPD headquarters’ network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations.... Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses,” (King). The NYPD realizes that Wikipedia is a mass-searched site for all kinds of information and they were making sure to cover their bases, regardless of the lies that they may have told in the process.

Wikipedia is a way more political and socially active site than I originally believed it was; which is both good and bad. Good, because it is keeping up with the times as an information source, definition provider, and thought stimulator, something I didn’t think it was doing beforehand, and discussing relevant issues and topics that people are searching on an updated day-to-day basis. So relevant, in fact, that there is evidence that potential Clinton Vice Presidential candidates are able to be predicted via Wikipedia due to the patterns that arise from pages in the amounts of edits that have occurred on the pages of Julian Castro, Tom Vilsack, Tim Kaine, and Sherrod Brown. Tim Kaine was chosen as her running mate, and Wikipedia has evidence that shows it predicted such; he was the individual with the most Wikipedia edits. “The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tom Kaine, on the other hand, has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits in the past week,” (Meyer and Starr).

However, this is also bad because this makes Wikipedia one more place where there is political and religious warring via keyboard, nit picking over details that frankly do not matter just to prove a point, and straight up shade. Wikipedia is in some ways just another biased source with a mirage-like neutrality that makes it hard to determine who is on who’s side for you don’t know who edited what and when.

Wikipedia is a also a place that receives traffic from not only from the those that we deem important, such as senators, Presidential candidates, potential Vice Presidents of the United States, the NYPD, but also from your every day college kids who want to make a difference. Wikipedia has its own language, culture, and work dynamics that are not apparent at first, second, or even twentieth use; if you’re like me in this time of Wikipedia enlightenment.

For its size, Wikipedia has fewer errors than any other Encyclopedia. This isn’t so surprising when you take the time to understand the editing process that is required for any information to make it to public domain officially. Teams of editors must come to agreement on the article at hand, or any changes that are attempted to be made on the page before anything actually changes on the page that the viewers see; it is a much slower, regulated process of change than I have been led to believe by research sticklers. There have even been edit-a-thons to update and change information on Wikipedia, specifically by students like Ira Ferris, who depends heavily on the internet and all that it provides in the academic sense, because for her, Wikipedia makes a statement beyond quick and unreliable Google searches; she wants to make sure history itself is accurate.

This encouraged me to think about my own use of Wikipedia and how subconsciously restricted it may be due to the years upon years of reminders of the inaccuracy of Wikipedia in an academic sense. What I have come to realize is that Wikipedia is more than just the red-headed stepchild that we like to pass it off as, for good, bad or indifferent. It can be a real and valid voice for certain instances and topics, but we have to be willing to allow such dependence. For Ferris, Wikipedia is a place to make history and to make history known; it is a place where she wants accuracy to be present. Many other Wiki readers and writers want this as well, which further fuels the culture that Wikipedia has created for itself, and in turn for others, due to the sharing nature that it survives on.

However, the changes that are made and are attempt to be made are not provided in a clear and easily accessed way for the public, calling into question morality, ownership, and justice. It makes copyright regulations a little wishy washy for we like in a world where copyright applies to more than just books, magazines, and journals. This need for proper citation and regulation has moved on to media of all forms and contents within your textual writing. Sure, most everything is shared due to the heavily used social media that our culture is built around and on, but the line between sharing and pure plagiarism is a faint and often situational one.

What we would all benefit to realize is that Wikipedia is more than we think it is, for better or for worse, even if we think we know exactly what it is, the product it creates, the people that are involved in this creation, and the online society that keeps it living, editing, and Wiki-warring to this day.