Word Play
by Samuel Greengard
Controversy aside, experts insist that Wikipedia is evolving into a
reputable source for information. Says Parr: "Wikipedia is climbing
into the same league as respected reference guides. It is gaining
greater respect every day."
THE BURNING QUESTION IS: Why do so many people volunteer so
much time to write and edit entries for Wikipedia?
Wales, who
spends about 200 days a year crisscrossing the globe to support his
passion, says that while contributors' names appear in the
"history" section of an article, everlasting glory is the last
thing on their minds. "They view this as a charitable and
worthwhile mission. They believe that sharing knowledge is
beneficial for society," he says. "Many of them also enjoy the
social aspects of discussing and debating the finer points of
articles and belonging to a community."
David Gerard is a perfect example. The UK-based computer-systems
administrator spends upwards of 50 hours per week overseeing pages
and handling an assortment of other functions. The self-described
trivia fanatic says that Wikipedia offers him a chance to exercise
his editing and interpersonal skills. "It's interesting to be able
to go into as much depth as you like on a subject without worrying
about running out of paper. It feels good to create a useful
resource," he says.
Gerard is convinced that Wikipedia's neutral approach resonates
with the public. Rather than advocating a single truth or a
particular position, Wikipedia articles typically offer a variety
of viewpoints, Gerard explains. While absolute neutrality is
impossible, and editorial decisions always come down to judgment,
"neutral-point-of-view writing on subjects seems to be drastically
rare. That's something Wikipedia does that no one else in fact has
as a key goal," Gerard says.
Share Your Comments