THE WIKI & WIKIPEDIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Disclaimer: Logo is the property of Wikipedia. No copyright infringement is intended

Digital Culture: Production Project by Angela Kelsey C3112620

The Wiki

Ward Cunningham says that he

coined the word ‘wiki’ on his

return from Hawaii in 1995(np).

Taken from the Hawaiian word

for ‘quick’, Cunningham came up

with a means of creating web

pages simply(np). In other

words, for those who lacked the

skill to create one from scratch

and those who wanted to

increase the time efficiency of

their creation.

Origins of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is perhaps the most well

known and well organised wiki. Roy

Rosenzweig states that the “origins

of Wikipedia began in March of

2000 with the creation of a project

called Nupedia by Jimmy Wales and

Larry Sanger. This was followed by

their creation of GNUpedia as a

‘Free Universal Encyclopaedia and

Learning Resource.’ (119)”

Disclaimer: Logo is the property of Wikipedia. No copyright infringement is intended

Following this, according to Voss,

Wikipedia began as a side project

“to allow collaboration on articles

prior to the review phase. (1)”

Rosenzweig states that “Nupedia

was closed in 2002 when Wikipedia

authors grew to outnumber it.

Since then it has grown to number

over a million articles as of mid

2004 in 185 different languages.

(121)” It would be many more by

now.

What’s the difference?

Wikipedia in itself is a user-created

encyclopaedia, whereas the wiki

covers a broader and less

structured style. The wiki is, in

essence, another form of webpage

that allows for user participation

and creation. While the wiki may be

just as informative as Wikipedia,

the Wiki allows for a greater

amount of speciality and creativity

in its creation. Wikipedia has a set

structure, a set look and many very

specific rules to follow.

Wiki creators can make their own rules, just as one would if they

were building their own website.

Wiki’s often focus on a single or a cluster of niche groups or a

single topic and develop a core base of information to educate the

public on that subject, or to serve their own collaborative

purposes. Wikipedia has a greater level of moderation than wikis

do. If there is plagiarism then moderators will ask for citations and

supporting sources. On a wiki it is up to the creators to encourage

academic honesty.

Content inclusion

For Wikipedia, information is

gathered and included from many

different sources and cited in text

and in a reference list. Original

research is discouraged as it

increases the likelihood that the

information provided is incorrect.

Referencing primary source texts is

also discouraged as it is a form of

self-promotion and therefore biased

regardless of the reliability of the

information.

Audience/creators

Wiki and Wikipedia articles are written for and by

the general public rather than by academics as

with other scholarly articles. Though informative

their credibility of information is not as high

because of the nature of its creation. Kittur &

Kraut state that “Each new editor working on an

article in Wikipedia has the potential to contribute

new knowledge with which to flesh out an article,

insight into how the article should be written and

vigilance to discover errors in fact, grammar or

judgment. (39)” These sites benefit from the

knowledge bases of such a broad audience

merely because it is out there and accessible to

virtually anyone.

Copyright issues/Intellectual Property

The free sharing of information online can have a negative effect,

regardless of whether they have given credit to the original owners

or creators of that information, or even paid for the right to share.

The increased provision of this information takes away from the need

for and profit of the print industry. People will rarely pay for

something they can get for free.

Creeber & Martin make a statement which may answer this dilemma.

They state that “Perhaps digital culture extends ‘planned

obsolescence’ and the notion of constant ‘upgrading’ into habitual

patterns of consumption and self-conceptualization, even in the world

of academic commentary. (109)” The notion of certain technologies

replacing others, of sites like Wikipedia replacing the texts they talk

about could merely be a natural means of progression into the future,

despite its obvious disadvantages.

Both Wikipedia and the wiki rely

on other people, moderators or

the general group of authors to

check for mistakes and source

errors. Lamb states that” This

ethic is at the heart of “Soft

Security,” which relies on the

community, rather than

technology, to enforce order.

Whereas “hard security”

functions by restricting access or

hiding pages, wikis save copies of

successively edited versions;

thus, work that has been deleted

or defaced can be recovered with

a couple clicks of the mouse.

(np)”

Negative side of collaborative

information sharing

The bias that comes from being a user

created medium can have its down side.

Objectivity is needed when discussing

factual information so as not to tamper

with the truth, however, humans are

naturally subjective. Ebersbach et al

states that “Whether we like it or not,

subjectivity is prerequisite to objective

consciousness. Those wanting to be

objective must have a point of view and

be able to say where they want to go.

Only then can statements be discussed.

(460)”

Benefits

There are benefits to having an online publically created

encyclopaedia. One being that it is a free exchange of information, it

allows people to give back and express their own intellectual ability in

a public sphere. Academics and the general public contribute on an

equal footing. What information is provided and how it is delivered is

more important that who provides it. Because of the accessibility the

internet provides, people can contribute to Wikipedia anywhere at any

time that they have access.

Wiki’s allow a similar level of freedom of

expression. The content in wikis may not

be as widely monitored as Wikipedia (noted

by the observed structural formation and

moderation of Wikipedia), but it does allow

for a more relaxed form of discussion and

explanation of a topic. Pages convey

information on their chosen topic but it

does not have to be explained as precise,

and the structure of the subject’s delivery

leaves much open to the authors’ creative

expression. Images are also more widely

used in wikis than in Wikipedia. This could

possibly be because of the structure of how

Wikipedia is created, as well as the nature

of the form, being an encyclopaedia.

Online Collaboration

Kittur & Kraut state that “Despite Wikipedia’s success, we know

little about why it has been so effective. One possibility is that

having many contributors’ results in higher quality and less biased

articles. (38)” One person alone may make a mistake, but many

people, or even several people can correct and reword each other’s

errors and provide a much broader knowledgebase than they would

alone. This also has its pros and cons.

Authors may dispute over the

information they contribute. Being that

Wikipedia is also a means of displaying

intellectual intelligence the editing of

another person’s entries may not

always be wholly welcomed. Goldspink

states that “Sanger recognised that in

the beginning, ‘force of personality’

and ‘shaming’ were the only means

used to keep contributors under

control. No formal punishment or

banning happened for six months,

regardless of there being difficult

characters from the start. (654)”

Image and Remix Site References

Slide 1 – Wikipedia logo and own text using www.Funny.Pho.toSlide 2 – Own image using http://www.photofunia.com.look-for.us/Slide 3 – Own image using http://www.photofunia.com.look-for.us/Slide 4 – Wikipedia LogoSlide 5 – Own image using http://www.befunky.com.look-for.us/Slide 6 – Own image using http://www.befunky.com.look-for.us/Slide 7 – Screenshot of the Wikipedia SandboxSlide 8 – Image from direct link site using http://www.photofunia.com.look-for.us/ Slide 9 – Image from direct link site using http://blingee.com/Slide 11 – Image from direct link site using http://www.dumpr.net.look-for.us/Slide 12 – Image from direct link site using http://www.makesweet.com.look-for.us/ Slide 13 – Own image using http://www.photofunia.com.look-for.us/Slide 14 – Image from direct link site using http://www.dumpr.net.look-for.us/ Slide 15 – Image from direct link site using http://www.anymaking.com.look-for.us/ Slide 16 – Image from direct link site using http://www.anymaking.com.look-for.us/

Works Cited /References

Creeber, Glen. Martin, Royston. Digital Cultures: Understanding New Media. Open University Press. Dec 2008. Web. 23 Oct. 2010

Cunningham, Ward. Correspondence on the Etymology of Wiki. Np. 2005. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html>

Ebersbach, Anja. Glaser, Markus. Heigl, Richard. Wiki : Web Collaboration. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. KG. 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 23 Oct. 2010

Goldspink, Christopher(2010) Normative Behavior in Wikipedia, Information, Communication & Society, 13: 5, 652 — 673. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

Kittur, Aniket. Kraut, Robert E. (2008) Harnessing the Wisdom of Crowds in Wikipedia: Quality through Coordination Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. San Diego, CA, USA Pages: 37-46. Web. 23 Oct. 2010

Lamb, Brian. Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not. http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/images/c/c1/Lamb(final).doc. Np. Nd. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

Rosenzweig, Roy. Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past. http://ecpdata.mdsa.net/sources_secondary/rosenzweig-highres.pdf. np. nd. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

Voss, Jakob. Measuring Wikipedia. Humboldt-University of Berlin, Institute for library science. 2 Apr. 2005. Web. 26 Oct. 2010