Stephen King on Wikipedia.

The article about Stephen King on Wikipedia.org has been put together collaboratively by several contributors visiting the site. In building encyclopaedias through open-source software, or sites, no concrete research is necessary. Of course editors may have searched the information specifically for this purpose, but generally people who have the knowledge simply share their knowledge with the rest of the world through one of the largest media of our time. This particular article cites 20 different references, which gives me the impression of reliability. In order to create an article on Wikipedia it is quite important to only include reliable, or verifiable, information, since this encyclopaedia is not a community where users are free to write whatever they might feel like.

The article itself contains not only information concerning King’s professional life, but also some information from his upbringing and hobbies. It goes deeper into certain parts of his life and sometimes focus is on facts that might not be as highlighted in other encyclopaedias or external sources. What separates articles in encyclopaedias and other sources is that encyclopaedias are generally not specific in some way, but aim towards covering as much as possible about the concerned topic. Another thing that differs when comparing this article to other articles on other online encyclopaedias is that this one contains mostly pure facts, woven together to short narratives. Other articles present the author by showering him with positive critique and pretentious adjectives. This Wikipedia[n] article gives the reader what he wants – facts. This is also because Wikipedia’s policy does not allow editors to take a stand, but encourages each editor to follow the rule of neutral point of view, which means that whoever includes the information is not allowed to include personal thoughts about the topic, since they may mislead the reader and are certainly not verifiable.

When looking closer on this new media encyclopaedia, I can not help thinking about the large flow of information passing numerous computer screens every day. According to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About, there are approximately 75,000 active contributors and 5,300,000 articles published in over 100 languages online on this site. Since its birth in 2001 the site has increased popularity and activates new editors, who serve new readers each day. The fact that it is free of charge, no need for registration and that the open-source software behind the site, facilitating the contributing process, I believe help draw more users. Every user, contributor, or editor makes a part of the community, which has come up out of this knowledge phenomenon. One could compare Wikipedia to any peer-to-peer software, since it is, to a certain extent, about give and take. Or sharing and receiving information. Thanks to the software, anyone is allowed to add, edit, or remove an article in order to improve the information. Behind all this information, there are ways for users to communicate through this site. Discussions may be created regarding certain topics, and through these discussions social networks are created.

The social experience of Wikipedia is perhaps not as significant and important as the intellectual experience, since Wikipedia is primary an encyclopaedia and not an online community for people to add friends and share their personal problems with people they do not even know. As far as I am concerned, there are social networks in, and around Wikipedia, but it is really all about the information. Although, people from all over the world can add to each others articles and comment on posts from the other side of the world, so to a certain extent Wikipedia affects and creates a social experience. But still, it is primary about the information. It is the information that brings people together, who then contributes with even more information, which then attracts even more people. The network goes around, like in a circle, and every day the diameter of the circle gets even wider. But, to prove my point I argue that people are attracted by the information, and not the people, and therefore it is more about the intellectual experience. Even though every line of information may not be true, or reliable, there is so many facts included in this context. On the other hand, what has made the site so big is the active contributing from people all over the world.

The fact that everyone, for once, may and can contribute makes this site, still, quite unique in the sense that the information contained does not come from one single person, but is collected and studied several times before it is tied up collaboratively on Wikipedia. I believe that people contribute partly to provide the information to others, but partly also because people tend to wish to satisfy their own intellect by proving for themselves that they are being needed and that they can make a change.