I just came across Nicholson Baker’s fascinating review of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton. I was amazed by how charmingly Baker wrote about the (in)famous Internet encyclopedia, and quite nicely reflected my own thoughts:
“At the bottom of a short article about something, it would say. ‘This article about X is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.’ …
Indeed! I have edited Wikipedia many times myself, though never for ill or selfish purposes. …I have too much affection for the truth. I have been challenged for my lack of credentials even on my Newsvine articles; nothing on the Web is safe from those who believe that those with a doctorate and numerous published articles have knowledge that trumps the knowledge of the “little folk” who, thanks to the Internet, finally had a voice. Baker’s article explores the psychological appeal of Wikipedia, which he credits with its success, along with its early adoption of material from the 1911 Britannica (who knew?).
Admittedly, I never considered Wikipedia’s glorious success as the product of simple altruism, vigilance, and vigilantes; I was familiar with the cornerstone philosophy of Web 2.0, the “wisdom of crowds,” and accepted that it generally worked, with or without so-called “experts” input … Wikipedia’s glory is largely due to the glory of Wikipedia editing and the delight in exploring. Just like the inherited wiki itself, the success of Wikipedia brings the delight of editing round again, to the place it began.
Lighthouse Journal 