Are you one of those people who thinks Wikipedia is inaccurate because anybody can edit it? What would you prefer? Something written by real academics with real university jobs? Do you think those people are immune from inaccuracy or distortion?
What if I told you, first, that not just anybody can edit Wikipedia, that it’s possible to get banned for repeated vandalism or misuse of the site? And what if I told you that even respected academics with published articles in peer-reviewed journals might misuse Wikipedia by contributing inaccurate or inappropriate content? For instance, like MIT professor Carl Hewitt.
See, people at the top of the knowledge-creating hierarchy in our society are still just people, too. They are no more or less trustworthy than anyone else. They lie, cheat, misrepresent—all that fun stuff. They can be astonishingly petty.
But Wikipedia works. Inaccurate and inappropriate material is discovered and deleted. People can be banned or blocked from editing. And they are.
It only gets better when more eyes are on the information. If you see something wrong, you too can go into editorial mode.
December 9, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Even peer-reviewed journals that publish research can be tainted. Especially if the researcher does not disclose his/her funding, i.e. medical research that is financed/influenced by a for-profit drug company. Not all peer-reviewed journals require that researchers disclose his/her funding sources. One of my psychology professors started a personal criteria of his own that he no longer subscribed to journals that did not require researchers to disclose their funding sources prior to publishing their articles nor would he review any research for those journals unless the funding source was revealed.
Like you said, that’s the best part about Wikipedia versus published journals, the power is in the hands of the people to stop reprehensible behavior.