I Wrote in an Encyclopedia (Weekly No. 7)

"You may be deceived if you trust too much."
— Frank Crane

I didn't grow up privileged, by any means, but the bookshelves in the basement of my parent's house were constantly filled with encyclopedias of all kinds: animal encyclopedias, black history encyclopedias, etc. I always remember my mother sitting on the phone with credit card in hand to order the latest edition. She deeply valued education, and owning collections of encyclopedias was just another way to ensure that her children had the resources they needed to complete projects for science fairs.

Although, my mother had a very altruistic intent when purchasing these encyclopedias, my father, on the other hand, took it to an entirely different level. I was forced to read encyclopedias as one of my punishments for misbehaving when I was younger. Talk about torture! He would ask me, or my sisters -- whoever was in trouble -- to go downstairs, choose a letter (book), bring it to him, open the book, and whichever page I landed on, I had to write a report on. Whoa. Was he serious? Yes, he was serious. He would peruse through the pages first so that he was informed on what I would be studying so I couldn't run circles around him. My dad is 6'5", at four feet, maybe even three feet, there was NO way I was running circles around him. I obliged, because I had no choice, and went off to my room to work on my report on orangutans.

It's hard to imagine anyone today punishing their child by sending them away to write a report on a subject within Wikipedia's database. I mean, I could easily land on Michael Jackson's page, even Beyonce, and this would be the furthest thing from torture; in fact, it would be quite enjoyable. Listening to "Thriller" or "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" could be classified as studying my subject of choice!

This experience couldn't have existed ten-fifteen years ago, nor could my experience from my childhood exist today.

This brings me to this weeks prompt- Which should be considered more trustworthy: A published encyclopedia or Wikipedia?

In my opinion, in today's world, Wikipedia should be considered more trustworthy than encyclopedias, but not to the degree where we rule out encyclopedias completely. News is constant, and publishing encyclopedias at a rate in which to keep up with the news is impossible.

With everyone being an expert on any given subject in today's Internet-crazed world (my expertise-Beyonce), Wikipedia provides a powerful tool for 'experts' to openly share their expertise. Now, this is Wikipedia's fortifying strength, but also its crippling weakness. The idea what anyone can post anything is frightening, but that's the beauty of the internet. You can land on a blog while researching a specific subject just as easily as you can land on Wikipedia; you're going to take in the information regardless of its credibility or not, that's the nature of reading. However, it's safe to assume that the general population doesn't use Wikipedia as their one and only source because of its known un-trustworthiness; which gives this site even more power, in my opinion, because it generally leads you to the actual published, factual, reputable article. Or is it?

The notion that Wikipedia doesn't claim to be fully trustworthy, is almost trusting in a way. I know that sounds crazy, but I respect that they provide a references section, which almost screams, 'if you need further proof, look below.' The internet is full of copy and paste content, the least anyone can do is cite their source, but that has become a rare act.

Another reason that Wikipedia is trustworthy in some degree is because for the most part, people are constantly allowed to edit each other and contribute to this sea of information; this wasn't possible in the day of encyclopedias. We were forced to believe that the information presented to us was factual, but who was there to edit them? There was no way you were going to write in an encyclopedia with the sole intent of editing the information, because the only person who is going to see that marked up page was you, and maybe your sister. And don't even think about writing in anything that belongs to the library!

I want to believe that most of the information on Wikipedia's site is factual, and that people are not abusing or taking advantage of the free-access and ability to contribute; however, it is known that some people do abuse Wikipedia's openness, which is why you have to be selective of what you trust, and determine the degree to which you trust information to prevent deception, as Frank Crane suggested.

The openness of Wikipedia draws people in; this has been the fuel of Wikipedia, and the utility and general trust of Wikipedia is the reason for its success.