Know It All Review

I enjoyed this article. It made me look at Wikipedia as much more of a legitimate effort at universal knowledge, rather than its somewhat awful reputation. I think the article rather intelligently examined the websites foibles as well as its benefits over more traditional forms of encyclopedia.

I do think that some of the things said in defense of the site were rather unconsidered, but then again, coming from Wikipedia, unconsidered is hardly a rarity. I thought the defense of errors was particularly flawed: "When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of 'But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.'" However, part of what makes this quote so frustrating to me is the tendency of the articles author to treat her subject as a juvenile one. How can we be expected to examine Wikipedia fairly and without bias with that kind of obvious tone to the work?

Also, and this is likely because I've never bothered to contribute myself (although I flatter myself to think that if I took the time I could surely find something useful to say), I did not realize how many rules, and good rules, there were about contributing. The rules about N.P.O.V. (the neutral point of view) and verifiability are both interesting, but I had never really inferred them from the site's content.


Overall, even though it pointed out flaws of the site I had never considered, I think this article has made me take Wikipedia somewhat more seriously. Yes, it is obviously a flawed effort: nothing allowing that much free input can expect to be free from a few "trolls", an unfortunate law of the Internet. However, its goals are strangely optimistic, and I find myself hoping that, eventually, we can have this sort of all-inclusive knowledge.