Where do you go for information?
Years ago, when I was managing a technical group, I discovered that when the technicians ran into a problem, they typed a question into their browser and got the answers.
I was amazed. The tool they used was Google.
I had never heard of it. It could do more than the standard browsers of the day. It seemed to have both an understanding of what was being asked and a vast storehouse of intelligence on which to draw for the answers.
Today, we have grown very comfortable with devices answering our questions. I have a grandson who likes to argue with Siri.
Perhaps in addition to having a connection with the collective wisdom of the ages, we may have discovered a way to solve that age-old problem of the youngest child not having a younger sibling to boss around.
Screen capture of Wiki.org site.
But before we take our instantaneous access to information for granted, consider this. Wikipedia, that experiment in self-correcting collective wisdom used by millions each day, is in need of support.
How can that be, you ask?
It's true. With over 4 million articles in English, the encyclopedia that is editable by anyone is making a strong plea for funding.
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that a non-profit organization would be making a plea for donations, but it seems odd that with such fully optimized SEO rankings, the organization has trouble generating support.
Ads might help, but how would we feel to have ads blinking and popping up in our faces when we look for answers to life's most challenging questions?
Perhaps the experiment is not working. What does that say about how important or valuable Wikipedia's content is to its audience, to its users?
But wait, let's not jump to conclusions.
As it turns out, Wikipedia.org has done this before. The vision of the company is to stay independent. That means, not to accept ad revenue, soliciting support from users instead.
There are basically two types of users involved, those that go to get information and those who go there to edit, correct, add or create content, in the hope of improving on what was put there before.
In other words, the answer to that question we dropped on Google may be forever changing, and that's the nature of the internet. It is always in flux.
So, how reliable is it as a source of wisdom, collective, historical or otherwise?
Buyer (or viewer) beware. There are no guarantees that if you pay for information it is any more accurate than free information, so improving the speed to answer may not be as valuable as one might think. The top "answers" may just be the ones that pay to be found.
That brings us back to the dilemma for Wikipedia.
Is the experiment working?
Well, if we count the number of hits as an indicator of success, it is spot on, but if we look at the impact on our intelligence, I am not so sure.
If we all stop trying to learn things and rely on the collective wisdom of the editors on Wikipedia, eventually there will be fewer and fewer editors. The collective will shrink, and so will the chances that someone will catch and correct an error.
This is a diminishing returns model.
Add to the mix the possibility that someone might set out to deceive or mislead, and the whole house of cards can fall down.
So, is Wikipedia worth saving?
You be the judge. If you rely on it, you might just want to support it and hope everyone else does too, or you may find the collective is not much wiser than you.
What are your thoughts?