Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 2)

The second half of the book, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, by Andrew Dalby, discusses why people love the use of Wikipedia, why its use can be damaging (especially if you are editing an article about yourself), and why Wikipedia can and cannot be trusted. It is evident from the "Why we love it" chapter, and also somewhat amusing, that the authors of certain articles on Wikipedia are very defensive and protective of their contributions and beliefs about what is actual fact. For instance, take the French toast example. What we have here is fellow Wikipedians fighting over whether French toast was always referred to as French toast or if this popular breakfast food was once called German toast before World War I (115-116). To me, it is very comical to take such an unserious subject matter and turn it into something that causes serious debate. Later on in this chapter, Dalby describes Wikipedia as virtual nation or a type of community where one can be free to be as candid or anonymous as he or she likes, and where one can also be recognized (120). Up until reading this book, I'd never really realized how much Wikipedia really emulated a virtual mini world, complete with mailing lists, politics and scandals. Wikipedia is a world where there are no page limits, and where everyone is treated equally, PhD or not. Later on, Dalby mentions some of the things that must not occur on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedians love to talk about themselves and show off their knowledge, it is an unwritten sin to contribute to an article written about themselves because it's hard to remain neutral (148). Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains acts of plagiarism, harassment, and political biases which should also be refrained from as well. Because of all of this, and the fact that you never know a person's credibility or why he chose to edit an article in the first place, or if a source is simply just a mirror of a Wikipedia site, Wikipedia cannot be trusted in some ways. On the other hand, Dalby does make the argument that Wikipedia can be trusted in other ways and is in fact, raising its credibility. Where other encyclopedias can sometimes be one sided themselves, for instance, Encarta only gives credit to Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb (203), Wikipedia includes information from all points of view. Dalby also claims that because Wikipedia is putting other Encyclopedias out of business, Wikipedia has no choice but to increase its standards. As the years go by, I feel that Wikipedia will, without a doubt, become bigger and bigger. It is sad to see other credible sources go down the tubes, but hopefully this will only make a better product out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as a sole source of information, but it is definitely a good supplement to learning. The convenience that it provides millions cannot be beaten. While the world is a reflection of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is starting to become a reflection of the world.