A few hours ago, the Boston Red Sox organization presented their new right hander, Daisuke Matsuzaka, at a news conference at Fenway. As I watched the footage online, I had questions and wanted to know more. On the pages of Wikipedia, I quickly read about Matsuzaka’s high school experience, his early baseball career, the 2004 Olympics, and the recent details surrounding his acquisition by the Red Sox. There was even information about tonight’s press conference, right there on the pages of Wikipedia.
The article is heavily footnoted with citations to content in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, ESPN, Yahoo Sports and japanball.com. There are facts stated with requests in blue asking for someone to post the citation. There’s a disclaimer stating that the article is a current sports-related event and the content may change rapidly. The reader is made aware of possible discrepancies in the article.
Yes, Wikipedia can be written to by anyone. And yes, anyone can edit what’s there. But are there instances where that’s a postive rather than a negative? Are there times when Wikipedia is the best place to look for information?
Red Sox fans will no doubt monitor the article’s content and tweak it if needed. They’ll edit out misinformation if it appears. This is the beauty of Wikipedia – collective collaboration centered around a point of mutual interest to disseminate the facts. Can Encyclopedia Britannica do that?
5 January 2007 at 3:49 pm
What I like about Wikipedia is the taking over of information by the general public. That’s the beauty of the internet….the power is shifting away from the privileged few as information is disseminated. I believe people will treat this site honorably. Sure, there will be some nonsense, but the majority will prevail and provide trustworthy information.