Information centre menu
News Newsletters Events Articles - Articles Archive 2008 - Articles Archive 2007 - Articles Archive 2006 - Articles Archive 2005 - Articles Archive 2004 - Articles Archive 2003 - Articles Archive 2002 - Articles Archive 2001 - Articles Archive 2000 - Articles Archive 1999 - Articles Archive 1998	Wiki What? By Joanne Pontee, Marketing Manager, PDMS If someone asked you to find out everything you could about the “Markov Chain”, the chances are you would go straight to Google or Wikipedia. “Of course, I’d use Google but Wiki what?” some of you might now be thinking. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) is a web based free-content encyclopaedia written collaboratively by volunteers from around the world. It contains millions of articles that anyone with Internet access can edit and these articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information. The word Wikipedia comes from a combination of “wiki” (Hawaiian word for quick), which is basically software that makes it easy to communicate and contribute online and “encyclopaedia”. Wikipedia, like YouTube and Facebook, is another well documented internet phenomenon. In 2008 it attracted 684 million visitors and, at the time of writing this article, it contained more than 2,717,077 articles in English. As you are reading this, somebody somewhere will be working on a new wiki article or editing an existing one. There are more than 75,000 active contributors, ranging from expert scholars to casual readers, working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages So just who is behind Wikipedia, a site which now has more visitors than ebay and Amazon and is currently the world’s seventh largest by volume of traffic? Wikipedia was created in 2000 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, an offshoot of a now abandoned project to set up a free encyclopaedia called Nupedia. A not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation was established to run the project and in 2001 a whole series of non-English Wikipedia were launched including: Catalan; Chinese; Dutch; Esperanto; French; Hebrew (soon followed by Arabic), Afrikaans and Serbo-Croatian versions to name just a few. Amazingly the project, to date, has been funded entirely by donations which means that refreshingly the site is devoid of irritating flashing adverts and annoying pop ups. When, towards the end of last year, Mr Wales warned that the site may have to resort to more commercial forms of funding such as online adverts or access fees in order to survive, he saw donations increase 10 fold. In fact by 1st January 2009, the total number of donations went past $6 million, testament to the importance and value some people attach to the Wikipedia project. The advantages of Wikipedia in comparison to its paper counterparts are numerous; it’s considerably cheaper, the “publishing” cost is extremely low and there is also minimal environmental impact since it isn’t printed. The editorial cycle is short; a paper encyclopaedia can’t be changed until the next edition whereas writers are updating the Wikipedia round the clock. One of its biggest benefits is that the articles contain links to other sources of reference material to help verify factual accuracy and aid further research. However, it is the very premise of an “open” encyclopaedia which can be viewed and edited by anyone, from the self taught to the expensively educated, which is cited by some as Wikipedia’s greatest strength and by others as its greatest weakness. Wikipedia proponents claim that drawing on a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds reduces regional and cultural bias often found in other publications. They believe it also makes it difficult for any one group to censor and impose bias. A large editor base also provides access and breadth to subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. Unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes, or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopaedias. On the other hand, Wikipedia detractors claim that by allowing anyone to edit articles they are susceptible to unchecked, inaccurate information and are wide open to vandalism, bias and prejudice. Facts can go unchecked, axes can be ground or personal vendettas waged. Wikipedia asserts that this is combated by the fact that “for most articles all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached”. It also adds that misinformation and vandalism are usually corrected quickly and that they also operate a full editorial dispute resolution process that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth. Acts of deliberate vandalism do happen on a regular basis. Take for example, the poor old aardvark, which for some reason is subject to frequent attacks. On January 11 2008 the entire entry on the aardvark was replaced with “one ugly animal” and then in February it was described as a “medium-sized inflatable banana”. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a piece of anti-vandalism software that can spot and reverse such edits in a matter of minutes. Wikipedia has also come under fire from many educational establishments, with some even laying the blame for falling exam passes firmly at Wikipedia’s feet. It has proven to be a real thorn in the side of many teachers, lecturers and professors whose students are taking information contained in Wiki articles at face value without bothering to further verify the accuracy of the data. Some Colleges and Universities are deterring students from using it and have barred students from citing the website as a source in papers or academic work. Wikipedia officials have pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and that it is generally good research practice to cite an original source rather than an encyclopaedia in papers or exams. Whilst some teachers are cursing Wikipedia others are singing its praises. They believe Wikipedia provides an excellent opportunity to help students learn information literacy in today’s “information overload” society. The underlying issue is not Wikipedia but how it is used. Students need to be taught how to assess and appraise information and to learn critical thinking skills to make judgements. Most recently, Wikipedia has hit the headlines again with thousands of its contributors allegedly unhappy at new proposals to change the way it is run. Largely as a result of two stories put on Wikipedia in January, falsely announcing the death of two prominent US politicians, Jimmy Wales wants to introduce editorial control. Under his proposals, future changed to the site would need to be approved by a group of editors before they go live. This has caused furore amongst some Wikipedia users as it is seen as a fundamental challenge to the egalitarian nature of the site. It would also bring Wikipedia closer to its rivals, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is launching a new online version that will allow users to submit their own updates or entries. Any changes or editions to Britannica entries online will have to be vetted by one of the company’s staff or freelance editors before the changes are reflected on the live site. The general consensus about Wikipedia seems to be that it’s a convenient and valuable resource and provides a good starting point for finding out information. However, it isn’t, as some under the age of twenty seem to believe, the sum total of human knowledge. It should be best viewed, as one librarian suggested “as a survey of the collective wisdom on a topic”. As with any source of information on the Internet and for that matter in print, information still needs to be viewed with a critical eye particularly when it comes to bias; Wikipedia facts still need to be checked and challenged. And, just in case you were wondering, a Markov Chain is a “stochastic process with the Markov property” or at least I think it is!

Information centre menu

Wiki What?

By Joanne Pontee, Marketing Manager, PDMS

If someone asked you to find out everything you could about the “Markov Chain”, the chances are you would go straight to Google or Wikipedia. “Of course, I’d use Google but Wiki what?” some of you might now be thinking. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) is a web based free-content encyclopaedia written collaboratively by volunteers from around the world. It contains millions of articles that anyone with Internet access can edit and these articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information. The word Wikipedia comes from a combination of “wiki” (Hawaiian word for quick), which is basically software that makes it easy to communicate and contribute online and “encyclopaedia”. Wikipedia, like YouTube and Facebook, is another well documented internet phenomenon. In 2008 it attracted 684 million visitors and, at the time of writing this article, it contained more than 2,717,077 articles in English. As you are reading this, somebody somewhere will be working on a new wiki article or editing an existing one. There are more than 75,000 active contributors, ranging from expert scholars to casual readers, working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages

So just who is behind Wikipedia, a site which now has more visitors than ebay and Amazon and is currently the world’s seventh largest by volume of traffic? Wikipedia was created in 2000 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, an offshoot of a now abandoned project to set up a free encyclopaedia called Nupedia. A not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation was established to run the project and in 2001 a whole series of non-English Wikipedia were launched including: Catalan; Chinese; Dutch; Esperanto; French; Hebrew (soon followed by Arabic), Afrikaans and Serbo-Croatian versions to name just a few.

Amazingly the project, to date, has been funded entirely by donations which means that refreshingly the site is devoid of irritating flashing adverts and annoying pop ups. When, towards the end of last year, Mr Wales warned that the site may have to resort to more commercial forms of funding such as online adverts or access fees in order to survive, he saw donations increase 10 fold. In fact by 1st January 2009, the total number of donations went past $6 million, testament to the importance and value some people attach to the Wikipedia project.

The advantages of Wikipedia in comparison to its paper counterparts are numerous; it’s considerably cheaper, the “publishing” cost is extremely low and there is also minimal environmental impact since it isn’t printed. The editorial cycle is short; a paper encyclopaedia can’t be changed until the next edition whereas writers are updating the Wikipedia round the clock. One of its biggest benefits is that the articles contain links to other sources of reference material to help verify factual accuracy and aid further research.

However, it is the very premise of an “open” encyclopaedia which can be viewed and edited by anyone, from the self taught to the expensively educated, which is cited by some as Wikipedia’s greatest strength and by others as its greatest weakness. Wikipedia proponents claim that drawing on a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds reduces regional and cultural bias often found in other publications. They believe it also makes it difficult for any one group to censor and impose bias. A large editor base also provides access and breadth to subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. Unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes, or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopaedias.

On the other hand, Wikipedia detractors claim that by allowing anyone to edit articles they are susceptible to unchecked, inaccurate information and are wide open to vandalism, bias and prejudice. Facts can go unchecked, axes can be ground or personal vendettas waged. Wikipedia asserts that this is combated by the fact that “for most articles all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached”. It also adds that misinformation and vandalism are usually corrected quickly and that they also operate a full editorial dispute resolution process that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth.

Acts of deliberate vandalism do happen on a regular basis. Take for example, the poor old aardvark, which for some reason is subject to frequent attacks. On January 11 2008 the entire entry on the aardvark was replaced with “one ugly animal” and then in February it was described as a “medium-sized inflatable banana”. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a piece of anti-vandalism software that can spot and reverse such edits in a matter of minutes.

Wikipedia has also come under fire from many educational establishments, with some even laying the blame for falling exam passes firmly at Wikipedia’s feet. It has proven to be a real thorn in the side of many teachers, lecturers and professors whose students are taking information contained in Wiki articles at face value without bothering to further verify the accuracy of the data. Some Colleges and Universities are deterring students from using it and have barred students from citing the website as a source in papers or academic work. Wikipedia officials have pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and that it is generally good research practice to cite an original source rather than an encyclopaedia in papers or exams. Whilst some teachers are cursing Wikipedia others are singing its praises. They believe Wikipedia provides an excellent opportunity to help students learn information literacy in today’s “information overload” society. The underlying issue is not Wikipedia but how it is used. Students need to be taught how to assess and appraise information and to learn critical thinking skills to make judgements.

Most recently, Wikipedia has hit the headlines again with thousands of its contributors allegedly unhappy at new proposals to change the way it is run. Largely as a result of two stories put on Wikipedia in January, falsely announcing the death of two prominent US politicians, Jimmy Wales wants to introduce editorial control. Under his proposals, future changed to the site would need to be approved by a group of editors before they go live. This has caused furore amongst some Wikipedia users as it is seen as a fundamental challenge to the egalitarian nature of the site. It would also bring Wikipedia closer to its rivals, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is launching a new online version that will allow users to submit their own updates or entries. Any changes or editions to Britannica entries online will have to be vetted by one of the company’s staff or freelance editors before the changes are reflected on the live site.

The general consensus about Wikipedia seems to be that it’s a convenient and valuable resource and provides a good starting point for finding out information. However, it isn’t, as some under the age of twenty seem to believe, the sum total of human knowledge. It should be best viewed, as one librarian suggested “as a survey of the collective wisdom on a topic”. As with any source of information on the Internet and for that matter in print, information still needs to be viewed with a critical eye particularly when it comes to bias; Wikipedia facts still need to be checked and challenged. And, just in case you were wondering, a Markov Chain is a “stochastic process with the Markov property” or at least I think it is!