Compared to traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia’s advantages and disadvantages are all from its open source model: open to everyone, has a large contributor base, and its articles are written by consensus, according to editorial guidelines and policies.
From the case reading, we can find Wikipedia’s two main advantages:
• Neutral, balanced and encyclopedic: Open to a large contributor vase, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds, Wikipedia significantly reduce regional and cultural bias and provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. Bias that would be unchallenged in a traditional reference work is likely to be ultimately challenged or considered on Wikipedia.
• Updated: Allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. Hence, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. Wikipedia’s open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be relatively promptly corrected.
In an ideal world, Wikipedia will run perfectly with all his advantages over traditional encyclopedias. Yet in reality (actual process), we notice some of Wikipedia’s disadvantages:
• Significant omissions and uneven of articles’ quality: Unlike the traditional way of making the encyclopedia, there is no systematic process to make sure that “obviously important” topics are written about, so Wikipedia may contain unexpected oversights and omissions. Also, though Wikipedia has a large diversified contributor base, yet most of its articles are written by certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor etc.). This therefore will cause certain bias. Some topics may not be covered well, while others may be covered in great depth.
• Long process time and bad condition for debated issues: Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus, this drives its neutrality, yet also caused problems. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles fluid or changeable for a neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, one that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but one that also permits disagreements to last for months before poor-quality or biased edits are removed.
Though there are some flaws of Wikipedia, it shows a upward tendency both on content and coverage.