Summary
The Wikipedia Page on composer Steve Reich is factually correct, though some of the information shared is written in deficient manner. This is typified by the shoddy overview in few entries in the page, where his credentials and credited work has been missed out. Though the writer is aware of his achievements and his life work, the superfluous importance to some aspects in the over others is not comprehensible. Despite the quibbles, the writer has included information that is factually true though the manner of interpretation is sloppy that leaves doubts in the mind of the reader. Cross-linking with other composers and their entries can help anyone access remarkable amount of information on minimalism and minimalist composers in a limited amount of time. To summarize, most of the information shared in the page is factually true and justified, but the manner of sharing information and the relevance given to few aspects over others degrades the quality and clarity of information.
Analysis
Wikipedia seems to be a source of good information with representation of correct facts and well researched data. Still, there are some lingering issues over the information representation and manner of portrayal. Some of the works in Steve Reich page has been written in such a manner that it creates ambiguity for the reader. Due to this reason, trusting Wikipedia as a credible source of information is understandably unconvincing. Few issues in the Steve Reich page which are factually correct, but the manner of writing is impudent. Example of unhelpful information in the page is listed in quotations -- “Reich is popularly regarded as repetitive and minimalist, but in some works deviates from a purely minimalist style, which shows some connection to Minimalism and the work of Reich's visual artist friends such as Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra” (The Guardian) . This statement is very confusing, as the reader is left doubting the actual meaning of this statement. In another similar case, the writer has given unnecessary importance to Reich’s Four Organs paragraph and left the other paragraphs significantly shorter. Also, the writer has missed out on all the important works of Reich between 1978 and 1993.
Substantial errors like these have made the information on the Wikipedia pages, more hasty generalizations rather than sound and comprehensible information. For any reader, Wikipedia seems to be one of the most commonly searched sources, but the way in which data is written on this site can become quite unhelpful. If you cannot comprehend the reasons behind relevance given to few aspects of a page or the manner of writing, the information is next to useless for you. Unclear and poorly cited information cannot be justified and leaves the reader with doubts and further effort to locate credible sources. If you cannot trust the information available at Wikipedia, people will use it less in coming future for factual information. Information in all pages should be justified, and equal relevance should be given to all points and issues which carry equal weight in terms of information they provide. There are some lingering issues over the information representation and manner of portrayal. Still, Wikipedia seems to be a source of good information with representation of correct facts and well researched data.
Opinion
In past 10 years, Wikipedia has become the first and most often used source for many people to research and refer for gaining any information they need. There are several features which distinguish Wikipedia from traditional sources for information. It is collaborative, democratic and dynamic. Popular media issue that is debated universally is – Trustworthiness of Wikipedia. The reasons for not trusting Wikipedia were brought to light by Brad Ray in 2009, as he made comparisons between Wikipedia and the epistemic culture of science. He made two claims; Firstly, Wikipedians are non-experts in the fields they write about, and they lack the epistemic competence for producing reliable knowledge like scientists. Secondly, Wikipedians tend to be anonymous and thus do have to worry about credibility and reputation that are the forces that drive ‘hidden hand’ of credibility. In addition to these claims, some general reasons for not trusting Wikipedia are; They (Wikipedia) say so. Wikipedia themselves state ‘We do not expect you to trust us’. They add to this statement that they are not the primary source, and some of the articles might have errors so Wikipedia should not be used for critical decisions. Also, Vandalism is another issue with Wikipedia as some editors create malicious and insulting entries that remain uncorrected for long periods of time. The only thing a vandal needs to make changes in a Wikipedia page is the availability of internet connection. Most of the time these entries, get noticed and are quickly deleted or modified, but some vandalism cases remain active for extended period. Finally, nobody should rely on something that they are unaware about who wrote it. Only a handful of Wikipedia contributors ad editors mention their name or provide their contact information (Miller).
While Wikipedians might not have contributory expertise; they are not scientists; they have never participated in scientific research many Wikipedians have interactional or personal experiences that they use to read and understand the scholarly resources available online. Some of them also have non-credited knowledge about certain domains from their personal experiences. Anonymity brings epistemic advantages with itself. It mitigates any negative effects of social stereotypes in the credibility assessment and enhances the critical outlook. Large numbers of Wikipedians reveal their material identity while adding information online. Wikipedians do much more than users of other online forums in relation to their online profile. Wikipedia articles can be trusted on issues related to current events or popular culture, built on sources that are available in ample and from relevant expertise. Wikipedia articles in the field of engineering, medicine and other technical fields can be moderately trusted, as Wikipedians have a sufficient level of interactional expertise to ensure the data is appropriate and updated. Wikipedia information is should not be trusted on subjects which need specialised expertise or topics which have limited reliable or trusted sources such as Philosophy, History of science, advanced science and similar others (Miller).
Conclusion
Wikipedia is different from traditional and other encyclopaedias as it is a non-profit organization. Accuracy is not Wikipedia’s major deterrent; its collaborative nature invites greater analysis and scrutiny. Wikipedia researching points out very limited articles of the encyclopaedic quality, most appearing to be biased, unbalanced and some even incomplete. Wikipedia is free, and user funded as all information is created by the users who provide information on the basis of their knowledge and experience. This self-funded and self-created information for public interest is not going anywhere, neither is the fact that information from Wikipedia cannot be trusted.
Works Cited
The Guardian. Can you trust Wikipedia?. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/oct/24/comment.newmedia. theguardian. 2005 Web. 2014
Miller, B. Can We Trust Wikipedia?. http://thebubblechamber.org/2011/03/can-we-trust-wikipedia/. thebubblechamber.org. 2011. Web. 2014
