In order to gain status on wikipedia you have to be very active. This includes actively editing and constructing articles while following the rules. More importantly privileges are gained by helping other users. Because anyone in the world can edit or create a article, there is a need for patrollers and teachers. Experienced member can even adopt knew members. I have requested to be adopted but unfortunately no one has taken me in =(. By adopting a member, the mentor guides the adopted member into becoming a law abiding citizen of wikipedia. I find this really cool.
I believe that without this hierarchy system wikipedia would not be able to function as well as it does. For the most part articles are very reliable and when they are not wikipedia lets you know.
question: How reliable do you find wikipedia?
Is wikipedia the best example of collective intelligence? if not what is?
I think I'd like to say that I question the credibility of wikipedia, but my actions probably don't follow this. Whenever I need to quickly look something up, if a wikipedia page comes up for it, my attention is taken. Also, whenever a friend needs a quick bit of information, I find myself saying "just wikipedia it." I think that I find a lot more credibility in wikipedia that I consciously think I do...
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not wikipedia is the best example of collective intelligence, I think that it's definitely a great example of online collective intelligence. I can't think of any other sites that use collectivity to the level that wikipedia uses it. Also, I think that the fact that pretty much everyone knows what wikipedia is demonstrates that the website has successfully used collectivity.