There was a time in space when ‘if’ there was enough money within
a household a series of Encyclopedia Britannica, or something like it could be
purchased. It was costly and had to be
updated. Otherwise, anyone that wanted to do research had to hit the library
which meant there had to be one close enough to walk to or take a bus. People that
did not have this advantage were out of luck.
Now knowledge can be shared without leaving the house.
Moving on via Wikipedia:
So why would so many people want to take their time to do
all this research, write an article and not get paid for it? Plus
is it accurate?
Let’s start with the statistics as of May 2, 2013:
Active counters
- Number
of pages: 30,082,666
- Number
of articles: 4,224,691
- Number
of files: 806,044
- Number
of edits: 610,328,042
- Number
of Users: 18,905,770
- Number
of admins: 1,443
- Number
of active users: 131,641 (Users who have performed an
action in the last 30 days)
*Information provided by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
– this is a constant update, which means by the time you check out the numbers
I have posted, they have more than likely changed.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an altruistic community by ‘nature’.
What motivates contributors can vary; however, it seems that for the most part
the motivation and vision have not changed since its creation in 2001 by Jimmy
Wales (watch video below by www.ted.com):
Wikipedia’s foundation is based on a Neutral Point of View
policy.
Jimmy Wales states, “…this is nonnegotiable… and if you
engage in [other] type of behavior you will be asked to leave the community”.
Objectivity is key while sticking with the facts: reference, reference, reference.
Objectivity is key while sticking with the facts: reference, reference, reference.
So what does this mean?
People are people. We are mainly social creatures, otherwise
there would not be a field dedicated to Sociology – let alone a huge surge in
Social Media. Individual motivations, as to why people socialize, can and do
differ...
Accomplished wikipedian contributors are highly recognized
within the Wiki world. This could be their motivation: social recognition. Do
their contributions benefit others? Yes.
Is it completely altruistic? Here is gets a bit hairy. The time and dedication they research to share their knowledge (and the education they probably had to pay for) does benefit others altruistically. Does it feed into some sort of personal reward? It’s more than likely, therefore not completely altruistic. But, to me, that’s going into a whole other realm; psychology vs. sociology.
Is it completely altruistic? Here is gets a bit hairy. The time and dedication they research to share their knowledge (and the education they probably had to pay for) does benefit others altruistically. Does it feed into some sort of personal reward? It’s more than likely, therefore not completely altruistic. But, to me, that’s going into a whole other realm; psychology vs. sociology.
So should you contribute?
Back to the statistics for a moment. Those numbers were up there. There are quite a few people that feel it's worth it. Although there are many dedicated contributors as you heard from the video, individuals
like you and I may share our knowledge as well.
Some ideas:
Contribute.
Is there a topic you love that no one has created a wiki page about which you can support with documentation?
Contribute.
Getting started:
Interesting Articles / Videos:
