The Pros of Wikipedia (Response to Jon Udell: Heavy Metal Umlaut)
Almost anyone who has gone through any sort of academic training requiring research knows that Wikipedia is the forbidden fruit of the internet. The voice of reason (your professor) makes a point of drilling the perils of Wikipedia use at the beginning of each year, and even beyond. However, if you have sunk your teeth into the myriad of pages Wikipedia has to offer, you might just find yourself tempted to reference them. While Wikipedia is not the best academic resource available, many are far to quick in dismissing its redeeming qualities.
A Quick Look into the Lifecycle of Wikipedia Page
Before continuing this article, I would highly recommend taking a few moments out of your day to view this video by Jon Udell on the history of the Wikipedia page dedicated to the Heavy Metal Umlaut. From a few sentences to a full fledged article and beyond, Udell follows some key aspects of a Wikipedia article that change over time.
From Umlauts to Ursula
One of the points that stood out the most to me is Udell’s remark about how the heavy metal umlaut is not a topic likely to be found in the scholarly realm. Does this mean its not worth exploring? Of course not. Wikipedia is unique as it allows for any topic to be explored without depending on an authority figure taking a particular interest in it.This means that everything from Disney characters to band names can be explored in depth, though the authors are not necessarily experts by trade.
The Advantages of Multiple Authors
Even if these authors may not have any official credentials in the area they are writing about, there is still some level of credibility. If someone is interested enough to seek out a particular Wikipedia article and subsequently edit, they must have some sort of interest and at least an inkling of what the topic is. Though this sometimes results in “vandalism” (as seen in the video), others are quick to restore credibility to the article – often in just mere minutes. Additionally, multiple authors keep the views expressed in check, as evident with the removal of the Nazi mention from the article. While one editor felt that the idea needed to be included, it is clear that the group decided to both remove it and keep it off the page as it did not match the overall more balanced tone of the article.
The Ever-Evolving Encyclopedia
Compared to a traditional encyclopedia, Wikipedia offers the unique opportunity to change just one article after a new piece of information is found without creating an entirely new addition. It is fluid and (for the most part) up to date. Instead of waiting six months for an encyclopedia for come out with an event of great importance, Wikipedia allows for the almost instantaneous creation of an article with at least the basic facts – not to mention the materials saved while still producing an even wider array of topics versus a traditional encyclopedia. Additionally, most people with Internet access are much more likely to have a smart phone or computer nearby than an encyclopedia, making Wikipedia (in my opinion) a valuable resource for forming a basic understanding of a topic with some degree of credibility.
Conclusion
While Wikipedia may not be the perfect source for a scholarly publication, it certainly is a valuable resource for the everyday Internet user. With its diversity in topics and its majority of its users which desire to keep the content legitimate, Wikipedia is a perfect example of modern day technology overcoming some of the trepidation people would have with its analog counterpart. People do not have to feel that the authors are some distant entity, but know that they are just fellow Internet users wishing to share their interests. Even those who have never touched an encyclopedia in their entire life are turning to Wikipedia in order to widen their knowledge of the world around them, undoubtedly expanding knowledge of previously uncommon topics – including the heavy metal umlaut.
Leave a Reply