Wikipedia is a resource that we Dumb Agents like to refer to quite often – primarily because it is a great example of the Dumb Agent Theory at work in everyday life.
For those uninitiated, once again, here’s a quick primer: many different people provide their input on a topic, this input is read by many other people, corrected if necessary, and in the end, an online encyclopedia is created with content rivaling that of Encyclopedia Britannica and with an added bonus: it’s more up-to-date.
Along those lines, Google has recently launched its answer to Wikipedia, Knol – as in a unit of knowledge. We should specify, however, that there are important differences between the two; namely, while Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, Knol professes to be a thesaurus.
Basically, the idea behind Knol is to have experts in certain fields write articles about their subject of interest, which is then commented upon by general users. We are not sure what exactly constitutes an expert, but we do realize that this may limit the number of people who can write entries. Consequently, this may also require many of the corrections or constructive criticisms to be found in the comments, which can become somewhat of a pain to sift through. On the other hand, this may limit online vandalism and people writing incorrect posts while they are typing under the influence.
Another important difference is that the authors’ names will be featured next to their articles, so no one can hide behind a humorous yet vulgar pseudonym. The reason for this seems to follow the logic that people will be more motivated to make sure their facts are correct if they can be held accountable. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not allow original research, so the facts can be checked through their sources, which must always be linked in order to be truly credible.
Unfortunately, at the time this article was written, our first search for “Michelangelo” yielded a very comprehensive article on Wikipedia, but zero results in Knol. We may need to give this some time before we say one to be better than the other and, who knows, they might actually work in harmony with each other. In the meantime we will continue referring to wikipedia quite often.
Ocean– Keep up the good work. I enjoy checking in to DumbAgent. This article reminded me of an essay I read recently about the fall of traditional democratic institutions– as witnessed, curiously, by the emergence of Wikipedia. The article is here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pesce08/pesce08_index.html
It appears in an online magazine called “The Edge,” which, if you are not aware of it yet, is well worth purveying. (www.edge.org ) Some of the brightest thinkers in the world are brought together there. Since you guys are yourselves bright thinkers, and at the edge– it could be another useful resource.
But beware: We have our eyes on you young whippersnappers.–
Uncle Bear
Welcome Uncle Bear, thanks for sharing this.
I read through the article, although I would like to go back through it again, there is a lot going on there.
To address the Wikipedia issue in particular (although it is an example pointing to a greater whole in the Edge article): It is a model worth following, which has already changed, as stated, from its original intent in various ways.
Initially I remember some colleagues worried that Wikipedia would distort knowledge, as there was no control. I never bought in to this argument, as every text we read is written by a human being, so there is always a chosen slant. Rather I trusted in the Wisdom of crowds not only for what is posted on Wikipedia, but also on the part of the readers, knowing this is merely one source of many.
Wikipedia is now highly monitored, it is true, and I think Knol, assuming it picks up a significant speed, is also worth watching. It will be interesting to see, down the line, if this new model helps maintain a closer adherence to the original intent of the project and how it will move away from the Wikipedia model, both for the information posted and the way it is used by consumers.
For the rest of you who read the article: this is not the central point of the argument, there is a lot more going on in this piece, which talks about the break down of ‘knowledge’ as we know it and much more.
Hi Uncle Bear,
A very comprehensive article! It’s interesting to read about the evolution through time of society, especially the recent changes.
However I’m not sure I agree with its assertions regarding Wikipedia. While it advocates more of an anarchical approach (and indeed says this is the inevitable final outcome), I think this libertarian approach is working quite well and will continue to do so. I have noticed that when I post something on Wikipedia (ok, the only time I did) it is reviewed extremely quickly by one of the “Wikipedians”. They tend to just conform the entry to the standard Wikipedia format. The corrections will come later by what seem to be other users like me.
I realize I may be a bit biased: I am quite a libertarian and I believe there are important differences between it and anarchy, and I tend to apply these notions to many facets beyond economics and politics, including Wikipedia.
Definitely an interesting notion, however, and thanks for pointing out The Edge. I’ll be checking it out.
And tell Aunt Suzy I said Hi.