Changes overdue at Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, was launched by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales in January 2001. Since then, its growth in terms of the number of articles and the number of visitors has been remarkable. The project is administered and coordinated by a volunteer army of registered users (referred to as "Wikipedians"). However, the project's present size means the founding principles which inspired more than a million users to register have turned into its Achilles' heel. The following summary outlines why.
Wikipedia's (5) Founding Principles
- NPOV as the guiding editorial principle.
- This means that all content should adhere to a Neutral Point of View. It's a mirage. In practice, registered users who are skillful at gaming the system can ensure that their own point of view prevails.
- Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering.
- Wikipedia's biggest flaw. Utopia might be free of pranksters and spammers, but we live in the real world. However, in the early days of the project this policy helped Wikipedia to expand quickly. As of December 2005, only registered users can create new articles, but exisiting articles can still be edited by anyone.
-
The "wiki process" as the final authority on content.
- Wikipedians themselves are unclear what this means, and "process" doesn't equate with "authority" in the true sense of the word.
-
Copyleft licensing of content.
- A plus point for Wikipedia. It means article content can be re-used elsewhere without the usual copyright restrictions.
-
Jimmy Wales as the ultimate authority on any matter.
- Larry Sanger resigned from the project in 2002. Recently, Mr. Wales authorized a small number of exceptions to the policy of unrestricted editing. He should really do away with it altogether to protect Wikipedia's credibility.
A growing chorus of critics
The weaknesses outlined above have stirred up controversy in the mass media and across the internet. Wikipedia itself has several pages giving coverage to criticisms from various sources, but references to certain websites have been banned via Wikipedia's Spam blacklist.
Paranoia rules!
An independent forum for disaffected Wikipedians, WikipediaReview.com, claims Wikipedia supporters hatched plans to disrupt their site. The forum discusses evidence for unethical behaviour by Wikipedia adminstrators. Not everyone who applies to join the forum is accepted. Paranoia rules! If you want to have a look at the forum try this entry as a starting point: Websites critical of Wikipedia.
Mischief
Wikipedia has grown enormously in a short space of time. It now has too many articles for all of them to be monitored closely, and not all mischievous edits are conspicuous. The alteration of a date in an article about an obscure event in history might go unnoticed for a very long time. Automated software programs (bots) revert certain kinds of very obvious vandalism, but robots can't detect subtle manipulations.
Edit wars
Edit wars occur between registered Wikipedians. One makes a change, and another one comes along and reverts it. There is a sanction for users who revert the same change more than three times, but a lot of mutual hostility could be avoided by ensuring that disagreements were resolved before any change took place. In many controversial subject areas there appear to be editors who are pursuing an agenda, which makes it hard to assume good faith.
A simple solution
Most of the major problems could be solved at a stroke by implementing an approvals system. New edits could be held in a sandbox area with an "Approved" button beside each change. They would remain there until they received approval from a registered user other than the originator. It would probably take a lot less time than the never ending struggle to clamp down on vandalism. At present, the inspection process is hardly systematic and not every change attracts someone's attention. Conspiracies could be dealt with by removing approval status from suspected collaborators.
Fiddling while Rome burns
Unfortunately, most Wikipedians are not willing to bite the bullet right now. Supporters of the status quo argue endlessly among themselves and dispute unfavourable blog coverage by posting hackneyed rebuttals in the comments sections. It's a bit like fiddling while Rome burns. Outsiders would be shocked at the amount of time Wikipedians spend combatting bias and drive-by vandalism.
In the meantime, keep a pinch of salt handy
A recent article in The Register, an online technology magazine, warns that Wikipedia can seriously damage your grades. It reports that co-founder Jimmy Wales told a newspaper he receives around 10 emails a week from students who complain that citing Wikipedia material earned them fail grades.
What others are saying
To see what other commentators have written about Wikipedia, Copy & Paste the following keyword phrases into your favourite search engine:
Wikipedia woes
Wikipedia problems
Wikipedia's credibility