Hari's Corner

Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then

Observations on wikipedia

Filed under: Internet and Blogging by Hari
Posted on Mon, Sep 4, 2006 at 20:17 IST (last updated: Wed, Jul 16, 2008 @ 20:13 IST)

One of the things about using Wikipedia on a regular basis for background information on a variety of subjects is that one comes to the conclusion that it's rather difficult judging the quality of content on a generalized basis. There are plenty of people who question the quality or authority of wikipedia content. However, if I am asked to point out the single biggest drawback of a huge community project like wikipedia, it would be summed up in a single word: "inconsistency."

The reason I say that it's an inconsistent source of information is because the quality of articles depend heavily on the subject matter of focus. For instance, one finds articles related to computers and techy stuff to be of a very high quality because, naturally enough, a majority of the content suppliers are from the tech-savvy group. Again, wikipedia is great in covering well established sciences and most of the historical topics - traditionally considered as "encyclopaedic" subjects. The focus, naturally enough is on areas which really form core knowledge areas. But when you start exploring more unconventional subjects, you start seeing a wide gap in the quality of articles.

Let me take just one example to explain this. If you search for information on the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) you get a huge amount of content - in fact, individual biographical articles for nearly all the major stars - which is regularly, frequently updated with the latest events and news happening in that field and the articles are almost always of high accuracy and quality. Mind you, I'm not saying that WWE is not worthy of wikipedia coverage. But if one judges that contemporary culture and television is given a high priority going purely by this topic, one will find that the information provided on, say, contemporary Indian television programmes or series does not even come close to the level of attention provided to Western media. Particularly when you search for information on regional Indian language movies in Wikipedia, you will find the information sparse and of pathetic quality. Similarly, if you look for the history of UNIX or Linux, Wikipedia is a great, comprehensive source of information with tons of full-fledged articles digging into subtle details, but if you (for instance) want to learn more about Indian food in specific regions, you'll have to look elsewhere because the information you find simply won't be authoritative or comprehensive enough.

I think I wouldn't be far off the mark when I say that wikipedia is currently heavily biased in favour of the Western hemisphere. Naturally enough, because the majority of wikipedia users are tech-savvy users from the US, UK and probably a few other regions in Europe. Maybe there are some contributors from other parts of the world, but for the level and quality of content required, the expertise is spread out too thin.

This is not meant to be a criticism of wikipedia. As a community project, its success is one of a kind in Internet history. But whether it becomes a truly global encyclopaedia will depend heavily on how much contribution will pour in from specific regions in the world as internet penetration grows in third world countries. Maybe in a few years from now, we will be in a better position to find out.

3 comment(s)

  1. Ah... You see? You should be writing Wikipedia articles on Indian food instead of wasting time developing CMSs! :DHehe...I do think, as more and more people contribute to Wikipedia, and more people in the world get access to the internet, we will see a higher quality of articles and we will see more of them. The reason there isn't a detailed article on, for example, Indian cuisine, is because it's mainly people from other countries who try to contribute to those articles, and they obviously do not know as much about Indian cuisine as an Indian might. However, by the looks of it (from the Google traffic gif I saw yesterday), not many Indians go online, or have access to the internet - or maybe Wikipedia just hasn't received as much coverage over there as it has here. I wouldn't know - I've never been to India (but would like to go).In a few years' time, I think the situation will be different - it will be better.

    Comment by J_K9 (visitor) on Tue, Sep 5, 2006 @ 18:54 IST #
  2. J_K9, that's why I said the expertise is spread out too thin. I know much more about cooking up CMSes than cooking in the kitchen :PHowever, you're right about the fact that there wouldn't be too many wikipedia contributors from third world countries at the moment. It's going to change, but how far remains to be seen.

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Sep 5, 2006 @ 19:00 IST #
  3. I know much more about cooking up CMSes than cooking in the kitchenHaha! As do I... If not I'd be continuing that Indian Cuisine article right away! :D

    Comment by J_K9 (visitor) on Fri, Sep 8, 2006 @ 22:55 IST #

Comments closed

The blog owner has closed further commenting on this entry.