Wikipedia Part 2

In the second half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia" begins with the chapter discussing why Americans love the online user-generated encyclopedia. One example that gets brought up in the book and is a perfect representation of what sets Wikipedia apart from a normal Encyclopedia is the "Freedom Fries" article. As Dalby explains, there are many different factors that go into reading an article on such a term as "freedom fries". Yes, the term was a "euphemism used for French Fries" as the Wikipedia page explains immediately, but there are many other factors that go into this phrase. It was the result of Americans reacting to a decline in French support in our country's decisions. Also, there was a movement in America to legally change the name of "french fries" permanently. The reasoning behind the name change is much more significant and serious than the article on "freedom fries", and a person can easily click the blue links throughout the page that refer in more detail to the "2003 Invasion of Iraq". I believe this is the point that Darby is trying to prove, the CONVENIENCE of Wikipedia is something that no encyclopedia can compete with. The idea of information being a "click" or "search" away makes Wikipedia appealing and easier to use than opening a book and having to search for yourself. With the internet being able to work so quickly, a person can click away for hours and read about 20 completely different topics that all connect in some way (like a 6 degrees of separation for information). Dalby does not ignore the problems with Wikipedia either. Although a lot of the information a person can get off Wikipedia can be helpful, people also need to worry about bias when reading any article. He begins Chapter 6 with a quote "Internet cruelty is easy. We do not have to look at the people we hurt" by David Shankbone (148). I found this to be a very strong point about the problem with the anonymity of the internet. Before Wikipedia, if a person wanted to share their opinion with the world they would either create a blog (which is personal) or write a book (where they would need to present their case to be credible and identify who they are). A person has to be careful reading Wikipedia because it's set up and overall idea create the illusion of a credible source, but there is no consequence for lying or being biased...just future editing. Dalby states "We love Wikipedia because we love talking about ourselves" (148), which seems to be a fitting explanation for a country obsessed with 'reality television' and the idea of becoming an 'overnight star' that has been fueled by the media and the possibilities of the internet. Wikipedia is the people's ecyclopedia, constantly growing and constantly changing.