Wikipedia recently got a lot of attention after its extremely successful fundraising campaign in which the company received $16 million in donations over the course of just 50 days. Many of the approximately half million donors from around the world contributed $20 or less each to keep the site free of advertisement (now the only remaining top 10 website to be commercial free). In this blog entry I just wanted to briefly address one debated reason for how the website raised so much money so quickly and the accuracy of the encyclopedia itself.
Now almost any of us who frequent the internet can remember the banner that has occupied the top of Wikipedia asking for contributions over the past couple of months. And the most memorable aspect of it has for many been the face of founder Jimmy Wales. A little bit ago I heard an interesting report on NPR during a more conversational segment claiming that Wales’ face was one of the primary reasons for the campaign’s success. In a rather un-NPR-like fashion the discussion revolved around how the image of an unshaved, somewhat disheveled founder has persuaded users to donate simply to get his face off of each page. Personally I can’t say I agree with this; to me his face seemed to have an extremely friendly appeal. He looked like a smart guy who needed help almost like a real nice guy who is just going through a hard time and it kind of made me want to give too (I believe in the cause and would have but of course I got lazy and didn’t). Whatever individuals took away from the banner, there must be some merit to this argument as the website raised in about a week as much as it did in a month last year. Even when taking into account the increased traffic to the site, that’s a huge jump. So next time you need to raise some money, one sure fire trick is to plaster a picture Jimmy Wales on your pleas.
Now onto my second topic, the accuracy of Wikipedia. To get right to the point, I hate it when teacher’s say that you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form for a project. Wikipedia is one of the few places to offer a comprehensive analysis of numerous sources in a way that’s highly accessible and easy to use. Plus to be honest, whatever the teacher says, even her most prized student is likely to start at Wikipedia prior to proceeding to “better”, “more accurate” sources. Now I’m not going to go to great details and research this, but Wikipedia is cited numerous times as having similar error margins as several highly renowned publications such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I will concede that if we were to travel just a few years back, information was often significantly flawed. I remember back in middle school when anyone could change the information on the site and I used watch students go to random pages changing details. However, with the progression of time, Wikipedia has taken significant measures to prevent vandalism which has also allowed time to remedy falsified pages. Now, experts for the websites constantly monitor new content and verify altered information. Perhaps the biggest deterrent is the simple requirement of a user account to make changes. This has, as the company cites, prevented many would be vandals with “nothing better to do” from wasting time changing data.
In the end it’s your choice as to whether or not you use Wikipedia, but to discredit it as an unreliable source is just plain wrong. After all, the very idea of Wikipedia, a universal online hub of knowledge, is a noble one and is a symbol of the union of modern technology and amassed human intellectual achievement.
No comments:
Post a Comment