Wikipedia Reputation

August 29th, 2004

Ross Mayfield, whose weblog I’ve subscribed to over the weekend, has an interesting round-up of the wikipedia fiasco that dominated the social networks scene this week (at least, it did in my aggregator):

“Which brings me to an lingering thought — that explicitly codifying reputation introduces a cost which can constrain commons-based peer production. Wikipedia was never supposed to work, somehow does because of good club theory and transaction costs, and has gained a reputation as a resource. Introducing reputation for contributors or articles is the greatest risk to the Wikipedia community. Getting a base study on factual accuracy can help inform this decision as well as educate the public on how to use and participate with this commons resource.”

When I first mentioned Wikipedia on LS about 1 year ago, I immediately received an e-mail from a colleague saying that I shouldn’t be linking to it due to it’s “non-authority” based postings. I agreed with the comment, somewhat due to my library school training on the use of “relevant” resources to answer reference questions. That was before I started to read about social networks and collaborative group work and how, as a general idea, groups work much better than individuals in solving complex problems and getting to answers quicker. Now, this is a general statement. Many factors need to be at play within the group for it to work in its best capacity. That is why I have become infatuated with Wikis over the past month, even though they go against one of the basic premises of librarianship: relevant sources. But shouldn’t librarians do a bit more research into collaborative work and online social networks before we dismiss wikipedia as garbage? Shouldn’t we analyze resources for quality before making blanket statements about wikis and other collaborative tools?

Granted, the article that started this well-informed debate was not the fault of the librarian who sent an e-mail to a reporter. We all have the right to our opinion. The reporter should have interviewed others who believe that wikipedia is a worthwhile resource. I, for one, am glad that the article came out. We need more discussion like this, especially in the library community, as it fosters meaningful discussion and great fodder for me on upcoming projects…

Comments are closed.