Wikipedia: Reality As a Commodity?

As Wikipedia continues to make a vast amount of information accessible to (and manipulated by) anyone who has internet access, the usability of Wikipedia is an interesting issue for education. In high school and in college, I've had many teachers specifically address Wikipedia. They normally warned against using Wikipedia as a source and often said to avoid it all together. Some colleges, such as Middlebury College in 2007, have forums to discuss the issue of Wikipedia. Many good points were made during the Middlebury discussion, and I have some insight based on my regular use of Wikipedia. Middlebury began their forum with a clip from The Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert discusses "wikilobbyists." Wikilobbists are people/groups (Colbert gives Microsoft as an example) that pay people to edit certain wikipages, ensuring those pages contain information controlled by the lobbyist. This is one glaring example of how information in Wikipedia can be biased or affected in negative ways. Wikipedia is certainly not a scholarly source and should not be considered as such. Yet, I view Wikipedia as an effective tool. I often use it to begin my historical research, because Wikipedia gives a nice overview of topics. It helps me find a place to start and get ideas. Often times the sources cited on Wikipedia are legit, so I can build from there once I've verified the validity. But I never actually use Wikipedia as a source in my works, only as that initial tool.

Wikipedia: Women in science page

To continue this discussion, my class about digital history wants us to view some history pages on Wikipedia and discuss what we see. I went to Wikipedia and to ensure I stay on track, I clicked the category 'History.' I selected 'History of science' since that's where my interests lie. One of the featured pages is 'women in science,' so that is the first history wiki page I am viewing. Beneath the heading, this page reads, “This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (July 2011).” I'm on Wikipedia relatively often, and I've never seen that message about layout before. The first two sections within the page (Ancient history and Medieval Europe) both have small notices that the sections need expansion. After scrolling down, I've realized almost all the sections have that notice. This is understandable, but disappointing.

Wikipedia: Discussion page for women in science

The discussion page for women in science appears very different from the regular article page at first. I have never looked at a 'talk' page before. Every wiki page has a talk section, which allows contributors to discuss methods to improve the regular page that is viewed by most people. By looking at Talk: Women in science, it seems the brownish-box at the top of the page contains all the important information one would need to know before they begin to add to the Women in science article. This information box contains basic guidelines, such as "Be polite,"  but also  explains the article's relation to the rest of  Wikipedia, and rates the quality and importance of the regular page.  I'm glad the women in science article is considered high-importance! As I scroll past that initial box, the talk page is arranaged just like a regular article in Wikipedia, but the headings are things like: People to include, Collaboration of the month, and Structure. There are obviously people working on and editing the women in science page. 

The other two historical pages and associated talk pages I consider on Wikipedia are Karl Marx and the Age of Enlightenment. Since these pages are laid out like the Women in science page, I have not posted screenshots. Both of these pages are much fuller than Women in science. The contents sections about Marx and the Enlightenment are organized differently, to serve the purpose of explaining a person versus a movement. Within the Talk:Karl Marx page, there is a notice in the information box that this is a controversial issue and a reminder to be neutral. I think it is good that this is there; at least Wikipedia tries to get people to contribute valid information. I like that a search box is also included here, to allow contributors to search past  discussions/arguments about Marx. I am initially surprised that there is such a small amount of discussion here, but the information box points out that this is accepted as a good history page. Since this page is good, there doesn't need to be a lot of discussion, contrasting the Women in science page. There is hardly anything in the information box on the Enlightenment discussion page. It only contains the basic policies, mentions that it was a featured article candidate, and suggests other related articles that need attention. Yet, there is nothing about it being a "good" page, which seems strange. There is an abundance of discussion here, which may explain why it is not considered good. The contents section for the talk page contains twenty-six items! One person blatantly calls this a "sorry excuse for the Enlightenment," arguing that many vital points are not included. I think this is a positive thing though, because it should lead to positive improvements. Viewing the discussion side of Wikipedia articles definitely adds to my understanding of Wikipedia. While I will continue to use it as a tool, I will now include the talk pages. The discussions give further insight into how/why an article is constructed a certain way and why some information is left out or included. It's a guide in which one can literally see how much work has been put into a topic.