Not all its cracked up to be!

What you ask? Wikipedia. I know I recently wrote a post about wikis and how I was greatly impressed with the principles and theories behind wikis, and I still fell that way. Collaboration is the way to go. But what I am having a problem with is Wikipedia, probably the most famous wiki in cyberspace.

So as the story begins… I was assigned to complete a Wikipedia page for my class. the topic of the wiki was left to my discretion. When first presented with this assignment, I had the hardiest time trying to figure out what quality and beneficial information I could add to a wiki- encyclopedia. I took a lot of time contemplating my potential contributions. Finally I decided to add an incorporated college organization at an accrediated university. As I began formatting and adding the information, I felt very confident in the information I was posting for the entire world to see. I believed it had “notable” relevance and was beneficial information for those who might be looking for it. An hour of editing formatting , using stupid symbols such as {~~~>><P<:L{ (to indicate that I wanted a particular word bolded) , I click “save page”. Immediately a red noticed flashed stating that my page had been deleted because it was without “notability” . In the belief that a grave mistake had been made I held my breath and hit “recreate” .

RED LIGHT! RED LIGHT!

Another notice popped up with the same information. Then I was blocked for disregarding the warnings. LOL!

Whew!

Now that that’s out, my question is how can Wikipedia claim to be a open community, truly believing in the exchanging of ideas if they aren’t willing to let ideas flow? Well in case you’ve been under a rock… Wikipedia is going through some tough times according to the media. And maybe this quick to attack behavior exhibited by Wikipedia’s volunteer staff, is to bring some notability to their own idea. Academia, businesses and the general public alike. have always questioned the notability of Wikipedia, now their scrutiny is being trickled down to the users who make Wikipedia possible. Is this fair? Now maybe in all actually the organization doesn’t have a real benefit to the “general” public ,but isn’t that what web 2.0 is all about? It seems as if Wikipedia is just like the paper encyclopedia , in that they aren’t collaborative at all. There is always someone else who has the final word.