Much like any encyclopaedic endeavour, Wikipedia.org has the best of intentions. Ití¢â‚¬â„¢s the peopleí¢â‚¬â„¢s resource, edited by people for other people to debate over. This isní¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily a bad thing, as it forces readers to re-evaluate and question the accuracy of the facts they are presented with. No matter how solid the information seems, nothing found in Wikipedia is beyond dispute. Just sign up for an account and you too can have a say in defining the world around you í¢â‚¬“ though you will probably find yourself battling with other devoted users.

More often than not, however, these disputes are not that simple to resolve. Deciding who has the most accurate information can be dependent on who it is you talk to. The old expression í¢â‚¬Å“history is written by the victorsí¢â‚¬  is something weí¢â‚¬â„¢ve had to live with for a long time. With the advent of Wikipedia, we are able to see just how far-reaching that practice has become, and also what it takes to be a victor in the war to define our world one item at a time.

In the case of historical figures and events, the recorded facts are just as likely to be tempered by opinions from the past as the present. For an example, one has only to look to the doomed French queen, Marie Antoinette. In her time, she was despised and executed by her own people. For many years, people have perceived Marie Antoinette as a spoiled and selfish monarch whose excess drove her people to revolt against her. Wikipedia, however, tells a different story. Focusing on Marieí¢â‚¬â„¢s struggles to adapt to being queen, her marriage, her children and the many scandals she endured, ití¢â‚¬â„¢s impossible to ignore the sympathetic portrayal of her. Littered with unnecessary details and questionable diction, the articleí¢â‚¬â„¢s tone has come under attack in the discussion section of Wikipedia for sounding like prose instead of an encyclopaedia entry. With the recent favourable re-interpretation of Marie Antoinette in pop culture coming courtesy of Sofia Coppolaí¢â‚¬â„¢s movie Marie Antoinette, it isní¢â‚¬â„¢t shocking to see it leaking into the article. In fact, the Wiki article on Marie Antoinette is a telling example of how history can have more to do with what the best story at the present moment, rather than the actual accuracy of it.

Marie Antoinetteí¢â‚¬â„¢s story can be looked at in two ways depending on the kind of tale we want to tell. She can be vain and selfish because ití¢â‚¬â„¢s easy to make her a villain. Of course, her story ends in tragedy so it can be easy to make her a misunderstood victim too. But which version is true? Can we trust Wikipedia to tell us the truth about a queen the people hated?Accuracy is something we desire but it is impossible to detach ourselves completely from the stories of our past that often colour our perception of events and people. When the facts are dependent on the memories of others, we have to question if this is the whole story or even the real story. Wikipediaí¢â‚¬â„¢s dependence on peopleí¢â‚¬â„¢s subjective definitions renders its accuracy suspect, and leaves the content í¢â‚¬“ and its objectivity í¢â‚¬“ in desperate need of questioning.

But there is something else Wikipedia has done; by showing how closely an open-source, user-driven encyclopaedia can mirror the supposed í¢â‚¬Ëœrealí¢â‚¬â„¢ encyclopaedias, it has also forced us into an understanding of how subjective other trusted knowledge sources are. The controversies and contradictions happening now are things that have been happening for a very long time. With Wikipedia, it is brought to our attention because, perhaps for the first time, we can actually participate in the interpretation and recording of history, and see for ourselves the mistakes that can so easily be m