Know it All

I think that the author's three main points in this article are to provide a background about the people and ideas behind the start-up of Wikipedia, to present information about how Wikipedia is updated and maintained, and to raise the question in the minds of readers as to whether sources like Wikipedia are worthwhile in our society. In regard to the early days of Wikipedia, I was very surprised to read that Wikipedia is nonprofit. Especially since Wikipedia is such a massive online resource, I assumed that it generated a large profit. I also found it interesting that there is no advertising on Wikipedia. I recently saw the movie "The Social Network," based on the life of the founder of Facebook during the early days of the popular social networking site. In the early days of Facebook, there was also no advertising, so the website brought in no revenue. However, after Facebook spread to a large enough audience, the site began advertising to make money. This made me wonder if Wikipedia is simply biding its time to start advertising on the site. I also found the way that Wikipedia is updated and maintained to be extremely interesting. I had no idea that there is such an extensive network of "Wikipedians" who are committed to editing and adding to the site. While I found it a little bit troubling to hear how many hours some users spend on the site each day, we should be thankful for their efforts, because they help boost the accuracy of the site. The most important objective of the article, however, is to lead readers to the question: "Is Wikipedia a valid source of information, and will it succeed in our society in the future?" The article is interesting in that it maintains an unbiased approach to Wikipedia. It is in no way a glorification of the website; rather, it is an honest analysis of the sites positive and negative qualities. Personally, I feel that Wikipedia is an extremely useful and beneficial website. Of course, I would not use the website as the primary source of information for an important research paper, but is very convenient to check quick facts and pieces of information. I would much rather live in a world with Wikipedia than a world without Wikipedia.

Although the following quote is relatively long, it contains excellent supporting detail: "Because there are no physical limits on its size, Wikipedia can aspire to be all-inclusive. It is also perfectly configured to be current: there are detailed entries for each of the twelve finalists on this season's "American Idol," and the article on the "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict" has been edited more than four thousand times since it was created, on July 12th, six hours after Hezbollah militants ignited the hostilities by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. Wikipedia, which was launched in 2001, is now the seventeenth-most popular site on the Internet, generating more traffic daily than MSNBC.com and the online versions of the Times and the Wall Street Journal combined. The number of visitors has been doubling every four months; the site receives as many as fourteen thousand hits per second." This is an exceptionally well supported paragraph because it starts out with a very clear purpose: to prove the all-inclusive, large scale, with-the-times nature of Wikipedia. After making this assertion, the author uses several concrete examples showing how these characteristics pertain to Wikipedia. The American Idol reference demonstrates that Wikipedia is connected with modern pop-culture, and more importantly, the "real world." The number of edits of the "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict" shows the incomparable speed and outreach of Wikipedia. However, the most effective part of this paragraph in my opinion is the number of hits that Wikipedia receives every second. This speaks volumes to the popularity and usefulness of Wikipedia.

Starting at the visceral level, I give the advantage to Encyclopedia Britannica. Although I generally like the appearance of Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a more colorful, inviting home page, with interestingly shaped boxes and search bars. However, since Wikipedia does not have poor visceral design, the advantage is slim. In terms of behavioral design, I give the clear advantage to Wikipedia. After searching "Taylor Swift" on Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, the Wikipedia search returns a lengthy article that is broken down in an evident table of contents, making it easy to search for desired information. There is also a box on the side of the page highlighting several quick facts that could be very helpful to searchers at a quick glance. A similar search on Encyclopedia Britannica returns five brief paragraphs with no headings, titles, or table of contents. To find a specific piece of information in this article, one would have to scan the entire text, which is inconvenient and time consuming. Thus, the Wikipedia page is much more understandable and easy to use. I do not feel that reflective design plays a huge part in the debate since reflective design varies from person to person, but for me, the advantage would again go to Wikipedia. Wikipedia gives the impression that it is the source of quick information for people of my generation. It has a modern, social, connected feel which appeals to many people my age. Encyclopedia Britannica, on the other hand, feels scholarly and formal. The name alone makes me feel like I need a law degree just to search the website. Based on these principles, I feel that Wikipedia is superior to Encyclopedia Britannica from a design standpoint.