Wikipedia and wikimedia

It is now week five of the OER course offered through Wikiversity. This time around, we are to read through “How and why Wikipedia works”, “The hidden order of Wikipedia” (PDF), and the “Our projects” page of the Wikimedia Foundation.

This from the first article: “Wikipedia exists to provide a globally available, free (as in freedom, as well as money), encyclopedic (verifiable and unbiased) resource to everyone in their own language”. This must be applauded! The article provides some insight into just how big Wikipedia is in terms of the number of people involved, and the size of their dedication. The systems seem very robust, with decisions made by trusted administrators, based on reasoning rather than a majority vote. This was a helpful read for me; it seems that the 'expert' still has a part to play in the wiki-based world. This was an astonishing admission by the discussants:

• DR: What about the 'collective intelligence' or 'collective wisdom' argument: That given enough authors, the quality of an article will generally improve? Does this hold true for Wikipedia?

• EB: No, it does not. The best articles are typically written by a single or a few authors with expertise in the topic. In this respect, Wikipedia is not different from classical encyclopedias.

• KN: Elian is right. Also, most of the short articles remain short and of rather poor content.

The discussion also highlights the vulnerability of wikis to advertising, both explicit and implicit. It seems from the article that the major Wikipedia project is working hard to maintain the balance between openness and objective review. Building 'credibility' and 'lack of involvement' are two challenges, as might be anticipated when all effort is on a volunteered basis.

“The hidden order of Wikipedia” reinforces these themes; the authors concludes that “rather than encouraging anarchy, many aspects of wiki technology lend themselves to the group creation of workflows and process”. The process surrounding “Featured Article” status is an extremely robust one, complete with peer review and the provision of constructive feedback. In brief, Wikipedia has a high level of organisation to its processes that enhance its quality and reputation; 'anyone' can still edit however they do so within a system that is sensitive to article quality and bias.

Finally, the overview of projects sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation gives an impressive list of activities (including wikibooks and wikimedia commons). The quote “The way it can facilitate learning activities and communities is still being explored” from the Wikiversity entry is one I have already anticipated. I hope progress is made in this area soon.

The fundraising is what makes the coordination of activity here possible; the volunteering makes the level of activity simply amazing.