PressEthic

We've all spent time browsing sites such as Wikipedia for information. However, how reliable and accurate are user-based systems of information on the Internet? How trusting or skeptical should we be?

People all over the world are die hard Wikipedia fans, and perhaps trust it as much as I trust the New York Times. These sites have built communities of trust with its users, and I think that's what makes sites like this work. While we know the information might not come from a reporter or a historian, the users trust the community that they've formed to provide accurate and truthful information. They have their own unwritten code of ethics.

Wikipedia says this:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers. It uses a special type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing.

However, who takes the responsibility when information is posted that is either inaccurate or fabricated? We all know it's a big deal in the world of journalism when inaccurate or fabricated material comes up. With Wikipedia, however, it's so easy, and users can get away with it. One side, which I don't agree with, could argue that if users read something that's false and take it to be true, then the fault lies on those readers. They should know not to take everything they read as truth and be skeptical of user material. I believe that most readers don't know better, and take what they read or see at face value. I don't think they should be blamed for this because then we would have to skeptical of everything we read, even from sources considered to be reliable. This is a bit too post-modernist for me.

It's disappointing that users who post information cannot be punished in any serious capacity: "repeat offenders can be blocked from editing." In this community of trust, it seems like people would be more angry when someone breaks that bond of trust, just as we would if a reporter from a reliable news source were deceiving us. Unfortunately, we cannot take instances like this too seriously in the user-based world because these sites do not purport to be the be all and end all of information. They do admit their flaws, and they do have someone who is keeping tabs on the information that goes up.

While, of course, there is a big problem with allowing users to post information quickly and easily because it could be false, there is also an advantage to such systems. Looking back at the paragraph from Wikipedia, it sounds strikingly similar to the way the AP is run: "people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes." The AP is also constantly making hourly changes and updates to its material, and rather than just relying on a small newsroom, they have stringers all over the world contributing. Wikipedia also doesn't just receive information from a selected few, but from contributors all over. You could argue that this system may be even more accurate and up-to-date because of this. Also, while it makes it easy for people to post inaccurate information, it also makes it easy to post corrections to those inaccuracies, and because of the amount of users, there are more eyes looking out for these. No matter how you look at it, user-based systems like Wikipedia are a double-edged sword.