Getting expert knowledge used to cost something. Experts need to make a living - they write papers or books, attend speaking events, or use their expertise to make or sell something.
Encyclopedias used to be written by a small number of well paid experts. Now, the world's most popular one, Wikipedia, is written by millions of unpaid contributors, some are experts, but others are not.
It's an immensely valuable resource, and surprisingly accurate in most cases. Thanks to the vast number of watchful eyes, if someone writes something incorrect, it'll probably be corrected within hours or even minutes.
It's fair to say that if only certified experts were able to edit Wikipedia then it wouldn't be such a comprehensive resource, and it probably wouldn't be free. The top experts in a subject are probably not the ones editing Wikipedia - they're better incentivised by selling their knowledge or getting attributed public exposure. So how can you really trust Wikipedia and the anonymous editors who write for it?
Wikipedia is acutely aware of the trust concern and has put in place a number of initiatives to build trust in their knowledge resource. Reputable editors will gain 'trust' points, and information about editors may be publicly displayed. All very well, but a reputable editor for King Henry VIII may not be a reputable editor for the 3G mobile standard. And 'reputable editor' is not the same as 'trusted expert'. Still some way to go I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment