Difference between revisions of "Wiki Work of the People"
(Created page with "If liturgy is the work of the people, I can think of no greater 21st century collaborative work than Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. At well over 5 m...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Wikipedia has it's detractors, of course. Since *anyone* can edit it, how accurate could it possibly be? Through the years, many scientific studies have undertaken to answer that question (you can find them readily enough via Google search on "Wikipedia reliability") and generally conclude that the encyclopedia is about as accurate as traditional printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia, however, is able to quickly correct innacuracies, while printed encyclopedias must live with their errors until the next printing. Professors, teachers and librarians are all among the most vociferous critics of Wikipedia, but my own experience as a former High School English teacher suggests that these same academics are also among its most frequent users and editors. | Wikipedia has it's detractors, of course. Since *anyone* can edit it, how accurate could it possibly be? Through the years, many scientific studies have undertaken to answer that question (you can find them readily enough via Google search on "Wikipedia reliability") and generally conclude that the encyclopedia is about as accurate as traditional printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia, however, is able to quickly correct innacuracies, while printed encyclopedias must live with their errors until the next printing. Professors, teachers and librarians are all among the most vociferous critics of Wikipedia, but my own experience as a former High School English teacher suggests that these same academics are also among its most frequent users and editors. | ||
| − | My interest here, however, is not so much with Wikipedia's accuracy or the virtues of using its content in research papers--rather it is with the structure and ethos of Wikipedia that enables it to be such a monumental "work of the people." | + | My interest here, however, is not so much with Wikipedia's accuracy or the virtues of using its content in research papers--rather it is with the structure and ethos of Wikipedia that enables it to be such a monumental "work of the people." In an era where 9 out of the top 10 most visited websites in the world are owned by large corporations and authored by professional public relations teams, Wikipedia stands out as the only top 10 website controlled by a non-profit foundation, and authored by a gigantic cadre of enthusiastic volunteers. I think the Church could stand to learn a few things from Wikipedia's approach. |
Revision as of 13:43, 20 November 2015
If liturgy is the work of the people, I can think of no greater 21st century collaborative work than Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. At well over 5 million total articles and an average increase of 20,000 articles per month, it is the largest collection of encyclopedic knowledge ever assembled by human beings (It claims 26 million contributors, not counting anonymous contributions).
Wikipedia has it's detractors, of course. Since *anyone* can edit it, how accurate could it possibly be? Through the years, many scientific studies have undertaken to answer that question (you can find them readily enough via Google search on "Wikipedia reliability") and generally conclude that the encyclopedia is about as accurate as traditional printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia, however, is able to quickly correct innacuracies, while printed encyclopedias must live with their errors until the next printing. Professors, teachers and librarians are all among the most vociferous critics of Wikipedia, but my own experience as a former High School English teacher suggests that these same academics are also among its most frequent users and editors.
My interest here, however, is not so much with Wikipedia's accuracy or the virtues of using its content in research papers--rather it is with the structure and ethos of Wikipedia that enables it to be such a monumental "work of the people." In an era where 9 out of the top 10 most visited websites in the world are owned by large corporations and authored by professional public relations teams, Wikipedia stands out as the only top 10 website controlled by a non-profit foundation, and authored by a gigantic cadre of enthusiastic volunteers. I think the Church could stand to learn a few things from Wikipedia's approach.
