Discovery Exercise #16

The name of the shuttle buses that run between the main terminal and the intra-island terminals at the Honolulu International Airport is Wiki-Wiki, which in Hawaiian mean fast (or very fast when used twice).


[Note: sadly the buses aren't all that quick in reality.]


I love the idea of wikis. Their collaborative nature ensures that information is disseminated quickly (wiki wiki indeed). I have used a wiki in the past and didn't even know it at the time. A colleague and I used Google Sites to do some in-house research for an internal customer, and posted it online. I suppose that we didn't have to, and could have just emailed the pertinent links to the recipient, but I figured that it couldn't hurt to try something different (isn't that the whole idea of Web 2.0?).

I have also been a fan of Wikipedia from the beginning. Yes, I understand some of it's limitations and arguments against it, but I think the pluses far outweigh the problems. An article by Dick Clark (no, not that one) points out the usefulness of the site. As for it's accuracy, he writes

Those who refused to believe that a user-generated encyclopedia could compete with the monolithic, traditional encyclopedia written by experts and organized by professional editors, were no doubt shocked when Nature magazine published a 2006 article comparing Wikipedia to the well-known Encyclopedia Britannica. The
article concluded that Wikipedia articles were comparable in accuracy and thoroughness to those of the older, paper encyclopedia.

By its very nature, Wikipedia ensures that popular sites are more scrutinized than others, meaning that more accurate editing attention will be placed on those entries:

Wikipedia's reflection of market dynamics is most easily observed in what
many people view as the project's weakest areas: obscure articles that draw
little traffic. In articles about third-rate garage bands and other topics of
limited interest, one will often find factual and typographical errors at a much
higher rate than in high-traffic articles such as those on "England" or "Barry Bonds." The much higher demand for information about the latter topics means that many more eyes will be combing those much-demanded articles for mistakes.

Since Wikipedia is open to correction by anyone, it stands to reason that the articles attracting more potential editors will be of a higher quality. Rather than a failure, this is a great demonstration of Wikipedia's efficient allocation of resources. The project, like any other, has a finite amount of productivity to apply to its various activities. It is a positive thing that those articles in greatest demand — those about topics of popular curiosity — would be the ones that are the most complete and reliable.

As with any resource, users should practice discernment when judging the validity of the information, and seek additional sources (including external links cited on the entry page) for verification.

The entire system, which is fabulously complex and robust to the
contributing editor, is remarkably simple for the basic user, who only wants to
find data on an unfamiliar topic. So long as one exercises discretion in
accepting information from Wikipedia, and so long as one's research extends
beyond the Wikipedia article to the sources it cites, Wikipedia is an
exceptional resource that is unique to our generation.