Web 2.0 Technologies - A Brief Evaluation of Web 2.0 Services - Part 1 Wikipedia

In the next three posts I will explore three current Web 2.0 services that typify the concept of the read/write web openness, freedom, connectivety within a social space and the 'network effects' that  a the level of commitment to these systems brings.

Part 1 - www.wikipedia.org
Part 2 - blogs
Part 3 - www.delicious.com

Part 1.  Wikipedia: On-line Encylopedia which allows contributions from anyone with access to the web, with the aim of organisation of the world' knowledge. An organisation called the Wikimedia foundation typifies the ideology of projects like wikipedia.org:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.  (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement accessed 13-11-2010)

Articles are created, categorised and edited by anyone with subcategories allowing topics to be fully presented in an organised way using a standard template.

Categories allow articles to be placed in one or more groups, and allow those groups to be further categorized. When an article belongs to a category, it will contain a special link to a page that describes the category. Similarly, when a sub-category belongs to a parent category, it will contain a special link to the parent category's page. Each category page contains an introduction that can be edited like an article, and an automatically generated list of links to sub-categories and articles that belong to the category. Categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree of categories, since each article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. This allows multiple categorization schemes to co-exist simultaneously. It is possible to construct loops in the category space, but this is discouraged. (Wikipedia.com accessed 13-11-2010)

The ideas of linking between categories, navigating and searching my category is a key feature of Web 1.0 hypertext markup, but the ability to create articles, contribute and allow debate sits in the Web 2.0 domain. A key importance is anonymity which "encourages a freer-er exchange of information, but also downgrades the responsibility that contributors have to actually get things right" (Butterworth 2010 lecture notes)

The site is not as free and open as possibly it's founders would have liked. Content added has to confirm to editorial rules including correct referencing of material to help substantiate claims. 

An interesting article I found on the Slashdot Technology website:

"The NY Times reports on an epochal move by Wikipedia (reported in August 2009) — within weeks, the formerly freewheeling encyclopedia will begin requiring editor approval for all edits to articles about living people."
Articled refering to people could give rise to libelous claims, which Wikipedia would of course would have to discourage has potentially the effect of dividing.... "Wikipedia's contributors into two classes — experienced, trusted editors, and everyone else — altering Wikipedia's implicit notion that everyone has an equal right to edit entries." or 'Internet Elitism.  http://tech.slashdot.org/ (accessed 13-11-2010)

One has to then question is Wikipedia is now any different to the Encylopedia Britannica, aside from the fact it is a free resource? Encylopedia Britannica provides authoritative articles written by experts in their field and content is subject to strict editorial policy. Decisions of what should be included made through 'traditional modes of thinking' could imply that this elitist 'serious' and 'high minded' approach leads to a somewhat stale and 'out of touch with reality' content.

Wikipedia includes many articles on popular culture and up to the minute issues in the public domain that perhaps are more in touch with reality. Inviting content to be added by anyone will open up topics for debate which perhaps would not see the light of day otherwise, or more importantly for aggregation of exiting information and expanding knowledge of a topic by opening the floor to the web community.

The downside to this is that we give rise to the 'hive mind (dictionary.com accessed 13-11-2010)', where potentially those with the most time on their hands to add content, or debate issues will, by a simple process of 'shouting loudest', allow their opinions to win through, rather than using proven fact.

An article on http://www.silicon.com (accessed 13-11-2010) gives an account of a story "in which Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months, of an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F Kennedy."

Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica: An Equal Match?

Traditional encylopedia's, with conventional business models of financing through paid subscription are struggling to compete with Wikipedia and other free on-line encyclopedia's. Perhaps the debate on which approach is the most informative information source for organising and providing a point of reference for our knowledge base will perhaps be settled when the Encyclopedia Britannicas of this world go out of business as they can no longer make it commercially viable to produce and publish.