The Wikipedia Model

I was having debate with one of my Digital History classmates, Gearóid Fitzgerald about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that if you haven't heard of you must have just come out of a coma. It started with Gearóid discussing the limitations of the encyclopedia and me singing its praises, and we decided to try and write articles giving counter-arguments to our natural point of view. Thus, this blog today is a response to his blog on the benefits of Wikipedia.

A response to Gearóid

Gearóid started his blog stating that the use of the online encyclopedia really dawned on him when he had an undergraduate assignment, which based on the prevailing view of UCC academics is a fairly bold admission (just as well he has his degree safely vaulted away!) Having the same assignment as three hundred or more undergraduates inevitably results in the university library clearly out of any even partially useful books, or else being left with the 1964 edition of a book which has been updated a dozen times since!

The problem with Gearóid's argument is that if his intention was to access academic sources for an assignment - Wikiepdia was no replacement!

In the rest of the blog Gearóid makes his point that Wikipedia is a good resource because:

• Of its speed.
• Ability to search through the text.
• It's constantly updated.
• Related articles are linked.
• It's digital.
• Pages can be saved and accessed on the go.
• And of course it is free.

It's hard to disagree with the above observations as Wikipedia is truly an excellent resource for many reasons, and we all use it for different things.

What is interesting however from Gearóid's blog is that he praises the format of Wikipedia - it's great because it is online, free, easy to use, up-to-date and so forth. He doesn't mention the philosophy behind it, the core doctrine of collaboration and the benefits of anyone editing an article on the site (though his Kerry footballer friend shows the pitfalls of it!)

Nor did he suggest that Wikipedia is strengthening democracy and is the pioneer of Web 2.0.

The blog I think it good as it looks simply at the end result - what is the benefit to me the user, the student etc. Rather than looking at it overall and it's effect on society, which would be a massive task.

In my critique of Wikipedia I have two seperate issues, one is to look at the model (collaboration, freedom to edit articles etc) and then to look at the format (up-to-date, free, easy to use etc.) I have issues with the core model of Wikipedia (though I still see it as a fantastic source) while I think the format of the site is excellent and can be replicated across different mediums.

Replicating the "Wikipedia model"

The Wikipedia format - up-to-date, fast, digital, free etc. is something that can be replicated, which would allow academic material to be delivered in a Wikipedia style but without the compromse on quality.

Looking back at the original problem Gearóid stated - no books in the university library - Wikipedia is not the "only solution" to this issue, rather there are examples of libraries being digitalised, the idea of there only being one copy of a book thus becomes an alien concept, and doesn't require our student to give up and head to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is free, and that is something which digitialised libraries will find a difficult model to compete with, can work which has taken years of research be offered for the same cost (no cost) as material uploaded to Wikipedia?

Cameron Murdoch (of BSkyB) in November 2009 argued about the dangers of subsidiesed news material (namely the BBC) which makes other media models unsustainable. There is no tax to pay for Wikipedia so the issue is significantly different, however Murdoch does make a serious point; that paying for a product is the only way to guarntee its sustainability and quality. Debates around this issues are bound to continue.

How can we alter the fact that while Wikipedia offers "up-to-date" information - a book in a library is antiquated, indeed once books have left the publisher they are often in some measure already "out of date".

Inventions such as e-book readers (or the much hyped iPad) have the potential to revolutionise text books and other academic material which is currently published on paper. Rather than printing a text book (which becomes irrelevent all too quickly) having a text book published in digital format, which can be sold as an e-book and accessed on e-book readers could be updated more frequently and at much lower costs for publishers (or eliminate the need for publishers at all!)

Aside from e-books, there are online models which can deliver the same product. Websites such as Google Books, Google Scholar or online journals provide quality scholarly material which can be accessed online, is searchable, and mostly free to use.

Following an e-book model (in tandem with the digital library model) allows traditional adacemic material to be accessed with the benefits that Gearóid outlined the Wikipedia model held:

Benefits of digital academic material: (Matching beneifts of Wikipedia)

• Easy to use - you could access your academic material on your computer or e-book reader.
• Up to date - because the information would be digital it would be easier and cheaper for the author to update the work and for the user to download an updated edition of a text.
• Universal access - digitalising books prevents the problem Gearóid outlined when required books are no longer available in the library.
• Storage issues - e-book readers have capacity to store thousands of books.
• Search ability - unlike print material, digital sources can be searched through in a similar way to Wikipedia.

Conclusion

Wikipedia offers many benefits to students as outlined by Gearóid. It however is a source which can be used in tandem with academic material, though ought not to be seen as a replacement of the traditional sources of information.

Wikipedia is a good place to start research as it gives basic information on the topic which are often universal facts (dates, numbers, individuals etc), and often outlines differing schools of thought on an issue. Most usefully Wikipedia does reference, and usually provides a list of authors on a topic, key books or journals and often provide links to them in the article.

Wikipedia thus is often a signpost to authorative academic material.

Wikiepida (and its model) creates a challenge to academia for reasons stated, however as e-books and digital libraries show us there are ways of changing the way material is delivered - without altering the material itself (or compromising on quality etc.)