Thing 8

Unlike many of the previous "10 things" encountered so far, I am actually familiar with wikis or, at least, with Wikipedia. I have found it useful numerous times, although I have never aimed for Wikipedia in seeking information - only gone to it after resorting to a random Google search that has led me to a specific Wikipedia article. I have found it to be a decent source for quick answers on often obscure topics. For example, several times I have found information there on Japanese anime shows - such as initial broadcast dates - that has been useful in cataloging dvds. However, even after reading about the administrative oversight at Wikipedia, it almost goes without saying that I would not consider it a legitimate reference source if, say, I was doing serious research or writing a paper on a topic - or if the information I'm seeking is of any vital importance. As for the idea of radical trust, the fact that Wikipedia has administrators illustrates that there is an admitted limit to community self-monitoring. (Naturally, proponents will argue that the administrators are members of the community, too.) In using any wiki, I may have "radical" trust that participants have entered information in good faith; does this mean that I can trust their information to be either accurate, authoritative, or without bias? Not necessarily - and Wikipedia very clearly states that in their FAQs. Obviously, a wiki is only as reliable as its community and the level of expertise of its participants. Wikipedia is commendable as a easy and accessible resource, is well-organized and fairly well-monitored, and offers a helpful array of links to other resources - but it is what it is. Most commendable is Wikipedia's honesty in admitting that and providing guidelines as to how to intelligently use the information it provides.