Wikipedia

If anyone has ever used the Internet in recent years to “look up” some fact, chances are they’ve used Wikipedia. The idea of collective intelligence manifests itself in the Wikipedia website, and we are able to determine the weaknesses and strengths of allowing everyone to participate in such a broad encyclopedia.

Wikipedia “represents a vast investment of freely given manual effort and judgment,” which means that the collective community both writes and edits the website rather than simply providing information for it (Medelyan). This methodology invests absolute power into the collective, which can act as a blessing or a shortcoming depending on the situation and perspective. While the potential seems limited only by the extent of our collective knowledge, the actual limit is far more restricting, as the website has placed limits on itself to keep it from digging too deep.

That is the flaw of Wikipedia. In the way it limits itself, it keeps itself stable, but also keeps itself from being the end-all be-all of encyclopedias. The website used to allow just about any specific page to be created; there was a time when each of the 400+ Pokemon were allowed their own individual pages. In the way of clarity and moderation, however, they grouped many pages into one, limiting the amount of information that was allowed to be displayed. This brought up many disputes over which pages were given relevance over others, and of course authors were upset that their work was no longer used.

Wired reports that Wikipedia will soon gain a color-coded system of reliability, with each word given a color based on the author’s credibility. This move is to help Wikipedia become a more credible source of knowledge, but limits the amount of information that people will take seriously. Some say it is a step in the right direction, but others feel that some of the charm of Wikipedia is lost when it tries to become a credible source.