There used to something called the “Encyclopedia”. It was a set of books that was a collection of reliable knowledge based on hundreds of thousands of articles, biographies, videos, images, websites, etc. It was considered to be a neutral and accurate source of information. In fact, some information is based on canonical material and analytical processes that produces solid and consistent information and interpretations. The days of the encyclopedia are numbered mainly because of the Internet and the growing popularity of “Wikipedia”.

When I first heard of Wikipedia, I thought that was a stupid name. In addition to that, I thought that the information gathering processed is based on a flawed concept. The concept of having anyone and everyone put together a database of information for the purpose of reference was strange. Call me old-school, but I like to open up an encyclopedia and look things up. To know that there are real companies, real staff, with real reputations that put thousands of hours of research to publish the Encyclopedia. Wikipedia today has virtually replaced the encyclopedia and is now the gold standard for information. Not because it is better, but it is what the new generation knows. Convenient, accessible and free, combined with the loose standards of today’s society makes Wikipedia the popular choice. Popularity over time will eventually dominate. With the extinction of the encyclopedia there will be little to no accountability on what is being defined as information as we know it.

Consider this scenario… Let’s say, a group of people, believed strongly in a cause and decided to define some new terms. They post them to Wikipedia. Then others that are “like-minded” decide to cite and endorse the article or definition. At some point, these terms will become valid and left searchable to all. The problem here is that Wikipedia has the potential to be a “sliding scale” for information. Held together by a conglomerate of users, contributors and supporters. Given the credibility it has the potential danger it poses as a “sliding scale” can change and morph a society. I am not saying that Wikipedia is evil, but we should be careful in assigning undue credibility to it. Wikipedia has its place but our society gravitates to convenience. Imagine, if we can define (or redefine) something simple, it is just a matter of time before we can define the bigger things.