Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 1)

So far, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, written by Andrew Dalby, is actually a pretty interesting read because it is a very current form of technology that greatly influences our everyday lives. Although Dalby, one of the many Wikipedia contributors, obviously seems to favor Wikipedia and believes that there are many benefits, he also discusses the negative outcomes that have come about since it has been invented. The first part of the book states how Wikipedia was started, how it has changed the way society uses an encyclopedia, the damage it has done to printed encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , and the implications. I found it really interesting to read about the establishment of Wikipedia and the google effect that helped give it popularity. For some reason, it makes me kind of sad that printed encyclopedias are dead. Where as the content on Wikipedia is user generated and can be edited by anyone, printed encyclopedias are written, unquestionably, by credible authors. Because a reader of Encyclopedia Britannica cannot just simply edit information based upon their liking, you know you're getting quality unbiased information. The death of printed encyclopedias is not only a loss of tradition, but it is also a loss of a type of symbolic status. Back in the day, owning a set of encyclopedias was a sign that you were well established. Wikipedia is a form of disconnect because we do not physically own a copy. Wikipedia's anonymity allows people to write whatever they please, whether correct or incorrect, biased or unbiased, because people have a shield to hide behind. Wikipedia can also be used maliciously against other people. For example, Dalby discusses John Seigenthaler and his falsely accused connection to the assassination of Kennedy (58). This being said, Wikipedia is not all that bad. While anyone can contribute and hinder the quality of information being provided, it is because anyone can contribute that also makes Wikipedia so great. The more people that participate, the wider an array of information that is contributed from all backgrounds and perspectives. Wikipedia is also useful because it is so convenient. I would never use a Wikipedia article as support in a research paper, but in the case where I'm dying to know something, I am shown enough information to become familiarized with a subject in matter of a few seconds.