Wikipedia has been a helpful resource for many years. Most individuals rely on it to provide helpful and accessible information in all situations. Because of this, Wikipedia has a large user base and an even larger image to uphold. Users are entitled to edit any of the information on the Wikipedia site. As humans, we are prone to twist stories to fit our motives. Can a site really be trusted when humans are in charge? As stated in The Social Media Reader by Michael Mandiberg, the people are no longer just the audience. The average person is no longer just listening to the Big Media. The "Active Audience" is interested in being engaged in current happenings and are willing to do whatever it takes to be heard. (Mandiberg, 13-15). Wade Frazier perfectly exemplifies this phenomenon in his article "The Biases of Wikipedia - A Case History." As he has done extensive research on genocides throughout history, he added information to the Wikipedia site. Frazier was being part of the active audience, wanting to add his knowledge of genocides to Wikipedia. “In late 2007, I read a Wikipedia article that referred to a list of massacres. I studied that subject matter for many years, and was immediately stuck by the list’s overwhelming bias” stated Frazier. However, his dismay was great when he realized that Wikipedia quickly fell back to their bias, even after posting a more thorough list of massacres. (Frazier). Open source media has grown quickly in recent years, especially in regards to Wikipedia. “The “open source” way of doing this is all the rage” states Siva Vaidhyanathan in The Social Media Reader. Even through publications like The Economist has dubbed it successful, does not mean is it is flawless. While it has been used widely in regards to history and events, it has been questioned in the applicability to research and other more extensive discoveries. (Mandiberg, 24). Open source is allowing the past to be altered, whether good or bad. As explained by Jacqueline Maley in “Wikipedia ‘edit-a-thon’ writes females into history’, females are underrepresented in certain aspects of history. Maley said, “The scarcity of information in this area is reflective of a wider gender bias for which Wikipedia has long been criticised, says Diana Smith, a female artist and member of the Brown Council, a women's art collective.” Individuals are able to close the gap between genders and other controversies due to open source. If used correctly and to its advantage, open source could be a game changer for the future of online information. Although, with this comes more challenges. As many things have been copyrighted, open source alters the effect of original material. “Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by the state, meant to foster creativity by generating a system of presumed incentives.” says Vaidhyanathan. As Maley and Frazier both discussed, Wikipedia gives rights to individuals to change and add creativity. It is simply a bundle of rights given to the copyright holder, not a single right given to the author (Mandiberg, 29). If all individuals used this right for the common good, Wikipedia would be full of insightful, accurate, and thought-provoking information. However, as long as people continue to have a bias and only add what is important to them, Wikipedia and all open source media will continue to be untrusted and useless for any credible research.
Works Cited
Frazier, Wade. "The Biases of Wikipedia - A Case History." The Biases of Wikipedia - A Case History. N.p., 24 Feb. 2008. Web. 01 June 2015.
Maley, Jacqueline. "Wikipedia 'edit-a-thon' Writes Female Artists into History." Daily Life. 2015 Fairfax Media, 26 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 June 2015.
Mandiberg, Michael. The Social Media Reader. New York: New York UP, 2012. Print.
First off, I really enjoyed your post. Though my post was in a way arguing with you blog, I agree with most of your posts. You are perfectly right in terms of what open sourcing is and its effects on how we search for information. You look at Wikipedia, an open sourcing site, and say that it is a way for people to change past events either good or bad. I look at open sourcing as a way for people to tell an event in their tone of voice. Though it may have the ability to come off in a negative way, the idea of Wikipedia was designed to give people the chance around the world the opportunity to share their perspective of what they recall happening in the real world. Compare to the life with no Wikipedia or open sourcing and having no way to determine what went on in a specific city or about a specific person in history. There will always be flaws, its about how open minded we are with open sourcing. Just a thought for you to think about looking at open sourcing in a big picture.
ReplyDeleteI agree. We need to find ways to allow wikipedia to become trusted because yes, it is untrusted in many ways.
ReplyDeleteYes, any open source will always be biased.I do not think a wiki will ever be trusted. But if a person really wanted to research they would use an creditable source.
ReplyDelete