Wiki: not to be confused as a Wookiee's evil doppleganger

I would argue that Wikipedia and associated wiki technology can, in some cases, be a more reliable source of information than traditional resources. Most often on fringe/niche/informal/unpublished topics where the best sources of information are users, fans, non-professionals. Although wikis, by definition, are created and manipulated by multiple users (there is potential for misinformation and sabotage) this feature is what make wikis wonderful again for many types of information. Theoretically, where users are passionate about topics they will be more invested in providing, supplementing, updating and correcting articles.

I did read somewhere once (sorry no reference) that one drawback of many web based technologies is that there seems to be an unbalanced ratio of consumption vs. production of content on the web. In short, it is very easy for users to consume without contributing which then leads to a very narrow representation of the actual interests and knowledge base of users on the web. Also, where there are technical glitches or erroneous information user apathy is apparent. Few users choose to alert appropriate administration or, potentially, in the case of Wikipedia, correct and add to articles which they know are flawed or incomplete.

Personally, I like using Wikipedia to get started on a search topic which is not well represented elsewhere to find alternative subject headings or similar topics but I do have to admit that I take this information with a grain of salt and am also guilty of not contributing to those areas where I know there are errors or missing information.

Even if Wiki was Wookiee's evil twin, it doesn't look like he's all bad