Sure, citing Wikipedia as a source for a research paper in high school was at least half-tolerated (as in, teachers wouldn’t laugh if you asked to use it), but the online encyclopedia isn’t nearly as accepted, or thought of as a ‘credible’ source at the university level because of it’s open-source policy. But after Wikipedia announced that they will be creating a book compiling popular Wikipedia entries, people have been asking: will a Wikipedia book be any more useful than its online counterpart, especially when anyone can already access the Web site for free?
Born at the beginning of a new era in 2001, Wikipedia started as a populist experiment created by entrepreneur Jimmy Wales, and philosopher Larry Sanger. At the site’s inception, anyone had the ability to write new articles or edit existing ones. This encouraged the organization of an online community of unpaid volunteers dedicated to further developing the scope and accuracy of Wikipedia’s entries. Now, however, Wikipedia is one of the 10 highest traffic Web sites, with tens of thousands of contributors, and about 2.8 million articles, according to salon.com.
Wikipedia’s latest venture is a partnership with a German company called PediaPress. This partnership will allow users to choose their favorite articles and drag and drop them into book form. Wikipedia and PediaPress began working together in 2007, but only earlier this year did the web-to-print service begin creating books out of German Wikipedia articles. According to uwire.com, the venture has been successful so far. Managing Director of PediaPress Heiko Hees said that ‘many people who received books came back and ordered more.’
As for the price of the tangible Wikipedia books, 100 pages will cost approximately $8. This cost seems minimal compared to the cost of other books of its type, especially when you would be able to pick and choose exactly which articles you want. However, would it really be more effective to buy a book comprised of your favorite articles, when you can already look up any of the 2.8 million articles online for free?
‘I don’t think there would be any need for a book, when you can already look up any article you want,’ said Stephanie Melillo ’09.
But Wikipedia is more reliable than some may think; the site has a clear power structure that gives volunteer administrators the authority to exercise editorial control, delete unsuitable articles and protect those that are vulnerable to vandalism, according to a New York Times article. So, the notion that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles doesn’t mean that just anyone does. However, Stephen Pinker, an acclaimed Harvard psychology professor said, ‘I think Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, although I don’t allow students to use it as a source for their papers,’ according to an article on uwire.com.
But Sheila Hughes ’09 points out that the Wikipedia is unnecessary in book form because once you look at an entry, you typically remember that definition, summary, or description after one read.’
‘How many times would you have to go back to the same article anyway?’ she said.
A Wikipedia book of all of your favorite articles might be worth the cost if you don’t have a computer nearby (which is probably unlikely), but if you’re not willing to pay $8 for every 100 pages, the site isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Leave a Reply