Why Wikipedia works

Google anything you like and the first link that is most likely to pop up is a Wikipedia link. It's not hard to see the appeal. But despite the flak from all quarters including librarians, teachers and academics, Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia works.

What I would like to point out is not that Wikipedia is unreliable. The alleged unreliability of Wikipedia is something that everyone knows and I don’t think I want to flog a dead horse. My question is: Why does Wikipedia work even though everyone thinks it’s unreliable? It works only because Wikipedia is a labour of love. No one gets paid for services rendered on the search engine.

With more and more people wanting democracy even in the virtual world, entities like Wikipedia are a fertile ground populated by pseudonym wielding, faceless authors. Unlike traditional encyclopaedias, Wikipedia’s content can be added by anyone who thinks something merits mention. This user-generated content follows the open source ideology: anyone can write or edit content. Technically speaking, users can edit errors till they are convinced and satisfied that justice has been done. But it is this very feature that ensures that there is an inherent problem with the system it follows. Anyone can turn an article malicious until someone notices the mistake.

It’s just that instead of one really intelligent author wielding his authority of the subject, several less or equally intelligent authors write the article. And with different people contributing to the article, it will be more comprehensive and neutral in its tone.

Teachers and professors use it although they preach to the high heavens about the evils of a one-stop shop such as Wikipedia compared to reputed books. And since most encyclopaedias in the book form start to go old from the day they are printed, the dynamic nature of Wikipedia ensures that its content is up to date and relevant. So, why does unreliability matter when it’s no longer an open secret?