Size Matters Not
Ever used Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia? It is written by some of the most brilliant and, ahem, not so brilliant people in the world in a collaborative manner that is truly remarkable. You can post an article about a topic you know a lot about, or about a topic that you know nothing about, and I can edit your words to improve, or damage, the quality of your article. The theory is that if enough people edit an article, the quality of the article will be improved. That's the theory and it usually works well. Usually.
The reality of Wikipedia is that because anyone can post an article or edit someone else's article, all articles must be read with some skepticism. The errors in the articles may be accidental or deliberate and very few of the contributors are scholars.
So along comes Scholarpedia, which takes the best of Wikipedia but using similar wiki technology but gets rid of the worst but only accepting articles and edits from actual experts. Here's how they describe their venture:
Scholarpedia feels and looks like Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed, both are powered by the same program - MediaWiki. Both allow visitors to review and modify articles simply by clicking on the edit this article link.However, Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:
- Each article is written by an expert (invited or elected by the public).
- Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
- Each article has a curator - typically its author - who is responsible for its content.
- Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.
Herein also lies the greatest differences between Scholarpedia and traditional print media: while the initial authorship and review processes are similar to a print journal, articles in Scholarpedia are not frozen and outdated, but dynamic, subject to an ongoing process of improvement moderated by their curators. This allows Scholarpedia to be up-to-date, yet maintain the highest quality of content.
Wikipedia will likely continue to be the biggest. But if you're looking for accurate information, are you better off with the wiki with the most quantity or quality? As Yoda said, "size matters not."
Ain't the Internet great?
Leave a comment