Academics who aren't fond of Wikipedia sometimes criticize the site for its apparent frivolity: The collectively created encyclopedia's articles about Pokemon, for example, seem rather more authoritative than its entries on poststructuralism.
But as David Weinberger points out on his blog, even Wikipedia's silliest entries can provoke serious thought within its community of contributors. The decision was recently made to delete a set of song lists (one for each letter of the alphabet) featuring personal names, but not before Wikipedians had debated, at great length, whether such arbitrary lists fall within the site's purview.
Most of the participants agreed that encyclopedias, whether hardbound or online, shouldn't be in the business of compiling "indiscriminate" lists. But a few made impassioned and interesting arguments for why Wikipedia should collect all sorts of ephemera. "Wikipedia is not paper. Lists allow users to connect information in a myriad of ways," wrote one poster. "Let's be real about why these pages exist: They exist because many of us are intrigued to find a list of songs that have our name in it, or perhaps someone wants to make a mix tape for their significant other or child's birthday party, etc. … What is the harm?"
Mr. Weinberger thinks the lists were deleted, in part, because of "a desire to keep Wikipedia dignified" — a motive he doesn't find particularly compelling. A question for professors: Would Wikipedia benefit from excising some of its sillier material, or should such content stay on the site? –Brock Read
Developing online and blended learning programs requires research and collaboration. Learn how top technology companies are partnering with campuses across the country to advance online learning as it becomes an increasingly important aspect of higher education.