Why are academics so afraid of Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is without doubt one of the modern wonders of the world. Since wikis were invented back in 1994 by Howard G. ‘Ward’ Cunningham, a US computer programmer, Wikipaedia has been an incredible success. I also think it is one of the wonders of the web that you can still go to Cunningham's original wiki.

Launched as recently as 15 January 2001, Wikipedia now has more than 2 million articles and is the largest encyclopaedia in history. It is reviewed continuously by everyone and libellous, criminal an copyright material is removed. While there will always be some arguments over its accuracy, the same can be said for many of the academic books I have read.


Wikipedia is the only book I have ever read which warns me it needs more citations to verify what is on it. It also had far more citations than any other book I have ever looked at. So why are academics so critical of it? Could it perhaps be because Wikipedia threatens their own authority?

Picture: http://ventnorblog.com/copy_images/flat-earth.jpg

In previous eras there were academics who refused to accept the blindingly obvious as the above picture reminded me. Or perhaps the earth is flat, after all.

Wikis: simple things for people like me

I hate it when computers become difficult. Html codes and such things can make all our lives so complicated. Surely there is a reason why we all like the simple things in life. Wikis work like this, using the simplest of computer language, so even people, like me, who have many better things than learn computer languages can use them and make changes. What should we use them for? Well here is a simple explanation:

From You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY

This You Tube video has already been watched more than 700,000 times: there, I knew people like simple things. However, in Rob Brown's new book: Public Relations and the Social Web (2009: p.39, Kogan Page, London) he recalls how the founder of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, said, in an interview in 2006, that PR people should not edit Wikipedia or wikis in general. Jimmy Wales thinks it is unethical for PRs to change wikis: so is this an open source that is not open, or does he have a point? Of course, academics love to hate Wikipedia. Do they just hate Wikipedia because it challenges their authority or are they right to be sceptical about everything they read? Isn't that there job? Of course, PRs need to check out Wikipedia articles for their clients but, if Jimmy Wales is right and they shouldn't change these articles, what are PR practioners supposed to do when they uncover articles which they know are wrong or damaging - just leave them. Is that really ethical? I'm confused already: I thought wikis were supposed to be simple.