In praise of Wikipedia

I have yet to run across praise for Wikipedia that doesn’t use the word ‘actually’. As in “It’s actually quite good.” Which means, “I expected it to be stupid and amateur, but it wasn’t.”

I think Wikipedia is wonderful. Not the least reason is that the articles are usually timely, detailed, and actually quite good. When I’m trying to understand something new, it’s the first place I go. The articles on linguistics and computer science are always quite good.

But I like Wikipedia in theory just as well as in practice. The idea of a knowledge-base that anyone who’s interested can add to is just fascinating. Know something about anything? Jump on in! It runs on the power of free time. And it’s constantly being combed through by millions of eyes, which is the one thing that the Internet is really really good at.

Of course, one must put on one’s Critical Hat when reading, as anywhere else. Wikipedia’s great strengths make for some big headaches. Vanity editing. Persistent vandalism. And pseudoscience topics where the nutballs have more energy than the detractors, and spend more time editing.

But even with all that, I’d say that a knowledge repository like Wikipedia, with its self-review and huge breadth, has the potential to become one of the towering achievements of our age. No kidding.