Wikipedia and Educational Blasphemy

     It cannot be discounted that the learning today in reference to Wikipedia was not interesting. I learned significantly more than I knew previously about Wikipedia, hands down. I found the visual and auditory representation of edits and new members joining to be particularly interesting, as well as the article rating system, which I had not known even existed until this morning. One cannot neglect the virtuous aspect of millions of users coming together to do anything of value, let alone with concern to education as well as expansion and dissemination of knowledge. It also goes against all that many of us have learned about reputable sourcing, which brings about a debate that is being charged with new juice.

    Most of us are probably aware that the difference between measuring accuracy for Wikipedia and scholarly journals is...well...scholars. Most of us have been taught which sources to rely upon because they are considered credible because of WHO reviews them. I state this, not to be critical of Wikipedia per se, but to present the root of the issue. We go off of who has been deemed credible based on their credentials and experience, especially if the feedback is coming from an organized group of recognized specialists of a field. If you have read this far, you might as well take the last plunge with me and see where the quandary comes full-circle.

    If we look to textbooks with apprehension, especially because of publisher bias, if we look to academics and specialists as an elitest group of individuals that are the only source of "reliable" information, and yet we recognize the citation work in Wikipedia, though the sources may or may not be scholarly, what knowledge do we decide is true? Which is valid, or most valid? Do we decide that the knowledge that is true is that which has been contributed to by the most people, or the knowledge of a select few? 

    I admit that I could be taking this subject too far outside of the context, but I think this presents a valid question. Perhaps it's just this sense that those of us that have been taught not to rely upon Wikipedia may be apt to be viewed as though we don't believe in Copernicus' heliocentric theory either. This is a difficult struggle or even ideological habit to break when you've been taught what is reliable and what isn't. I understand this is the unlearning part of connectivism, which I can completely appreciate. This will be a tough nut to crack. Perhaps I am looking at this too divisively? 

    All in all, I think that todays content presented some valuable content and questions.