Wikipedia - Why I Hate it and Love it at the Same Time

Wikipedia has become one of the most used resources on the internet. Its called an encyclopedia, but what it really. Clearly the traditional definition of an encyclopedia has changed with the dynamics of a wiki. Wikipedia, some will argue is not an encyclopedia but just sources of information and data since some articles really don't link up with other articles and some are merely listings of information and not really articles that should be included in an encyclopedia. This is a double-sided sword since it isn't true to its encyclopedia definition but also provides users with a wealth of information and knowledge that may not be included other encyclopedias.

The other big issue I have is with not Wikipedia itself but its community of users. I have found that first going to the discussion section of an article before adding content to the actual article may not always be good. People have their own perceptions and interpretations of what can and cannot be on an article. Mainly the topic of debate is on interpretation because the rules for publishing content on Wikipedia can be broad and general. Some users of Wikipedia's community are such gatekeepers that there is nothing that they will not report you on, rally a posse of naysayers, and then threaten you to quit writing. These people are so self-absorbed and trapped in there ideas and thoughts that everyone must first be censored and approved by them before they will allow anything on their Wikipedia article because in their mind they have claimed ownership. Article discussions are very specific to a field or topic, so if you start talking about something business in a topic that is IT expect to get burned in debate. People that do similar processes/jobs every day tend to be more like-minded than those who don't. Your argument for why something should or not be included in an article in no which way, shape, or form may be wrong. In fact, it may be completely viable, but in the midst of a group of people whose lack of understanding of the world resides in a single topic your argument may not stand a chance. I remember trying to add some financial pricing data to the gaming industry since it had such a unique pricing scheme compared to other industries that I thought it might be some useful information for business people(more specifically financial analysts). Since I discussed the topic in a gaming-related article, the audience was clueless to anything finance. They just couldn't get it through their head that there could be value to something with numbers. This and no other reason was why I was unable to post this sort of information on Wikipedia(although they tried some bogus excuses too).

The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia in concept sounds very good. However, when it comes to practicality, there are going to be gatekeepers and people with conflicting view points that will block you from supplying credible, factual, and useful information to the public. I just wish there was some check and balances!

In the future, I do see Wikipedia reshaping the meaning of an encyclopedia by adding content that would not be deemed appropriate for the traditional encyclopedia. This means that I doubt there will be an new definition created for the type of site Wikipedia is. Rather, I believe that the definition of encyclopedia itself will change.

In addition, with people's changing mindset and a more formalized Wikipedia posting and editing system, an acceptance of great data, information, and other content. I see Wikipedia evolving into rather an information referencer, to being more of what the referenced data is today.

Is this good for the future? The best I can tell it should provide the public access to greater amounts of information at their fingertips and the opportunity to utilize all that data for more research and analysis. Not just a job-level, but at any individual wishing to discover more about a particular topic.