Mark Humphrys - "Why on earth would I link to you?" - Follow-up - In defence of Wikipedia

In defence of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has become my preferred destination for links. Yes there are major problems with it, and something much better could be imagined.

But on balance, it is better than the alternatives.

In defence of Wikipedia:

I link a lot to Wikipedia now. Yes I know it can be edited by anyone, and all information needs to be cross-checked, and entries regularly are vandalised, but here's why I still link to it:

  1. Vandals are usually discovered quickly, because so many people are watching the page. Re-load a little later and the vandalism is gone, and the vandal banned.
  2. Vandalism may be only a short-term problem. I trust that the software will improve so that, as on eBay, authors can build a long-term reputation, and we can choose views to see all authors, or only those above a certain quality. There are many software ways that Wikipedia can improve, and I think it will, and I can keep my links to it.
  3. Even where information is sketchy, I still link to Wikipedia for the external links sections, which is for many topics better quality, better maintained, and more up to date than Yahoo or Google Directory or Open Directory. View the Wikipedia link as a starting point for exploration, not a destination.
  4. Wikipedia is so up-to-date because so many people are always working on it. Whereas Yahoo, for example, has some directory categories that have not been edited in years.
  5. Links are so simple in format:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic
    that: (1) you can actually guess them, and: (2) it looks like they will never need to be changed, whereas Yahoo and Google Directory and Open Directory re-organise their directory structures regularly and break links.

Criticism of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is flawed, but better than the alternatives:

The whole Wikipedia debate points out that, even today, so many years after the start of the Web, there is still no perfect site to link to.

  • Consider yet again, Shakespeare. Who do you link to?
    1. Google search - No biography. Chaotic.
    2. Google directory - No biography.
    3. Open Directory - No biography.
    4. Yahoo directory - No biography.
    5. about.com - No biography. Chaotic.
    6. Wikipedia - Biography. Rich internal and external links. Free.
    7. Encyclopędia Britannica - Biography, but few links. Pay to view.
    8. Encarta - Biography, but sparse. Few links.
    9. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (and mirror sites) - Biography, but sparse. Few links.
  • Wikipedia clearly seems the best, even though at any moment it may be vandalised.

  • And that topic was chosen because everyone would have a page for it. For obscure topics, Wikipedia wins by simply having an article. No one else matches its coverage:
    1. Wikipedia - 2 million articles.
    2. Open Directory - 600,000 categories.
    3. Google directory (same) - 600,000 categories.
    4. Encyclopędia Britannica - 120,000 articles.
    5. Encarta - 70,000 articles.
    6. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - 50,000 articles.

Future alternatives to Wikipedia