I think this note by the New Yorker is trying to discredit Wikipedia. However, the way I see it is that it shows there is a community of people who make these edits on the websites and provide information on a vast majority of topics. I personally am one too often look up someone’s wikipedia to learn about their films, education, and personal life. I also have noticed sometimes when there are facts that have just been updated within minutes. For example, when the Queen of England passed earlier this year, I saw it on twitter immediately. I then saw that Wikipedia was already updated and had her date of death and age at death. Therefore, I think that the pros of Wikipedia outweigh the occasional few mishaps of facts. As for grammar and clarity, I do not think that is a big deal. A scholar could go through the New Yorker’s post and probably find errors with their grammar and clarity too. I think the New Yorker was trying to be informative while discrediting Wikipedia. However, it makes me wonder why the New Yorker did this deep dive on Wikipedia’s history, community, etc. I bet there is a wikipedia page for the New Yorker that someone could learn more about this magazine. Therefore, they are both talking about one another. As opposed to many being able to edit and change the facts on wikipedia, this post on the New Yorker is left to one author who seems to be impartial.
Leave a Reply