« SiteAdvisor | Main | Vincent Schiavelli »

Not your grandfather's encyclopedia...

I've been talking a lot about Wikipedia lately. I don't consider myself an expert on Wikipedia, but I think I get some of the issues that are cropping up after the Curry and Seigenthaler flaps. In case you missed those, Adam Curry changed a Wikipedia item on podcasting and John Seigenthaler complained bitterly about a Wikipedia article that referred to his possible involvement in the Kennedy Assassination (which is absurd; this was evidently an ill-conceived prank). These flaps turned up the volume on discussions of Wikipedia's accountability for its contents. If bad facts appear in Wikipedia, who do you blame? In traditional publishing, you blame the publisher, and that's justified because the publisher has a system for collecting, vetting, and editing content before it's published. However Wikipedia has volunteer editors who review articles and updates after they're posted, not before. The actual contributors can be anybody, and until recently they could be anonymous (though generally traceable through their IP numbers). It's a decentralized system where no single person or entity is clearly accountable for what's posted, yet it works – you've probably heard about Nature's investigation showing that Wikipedia, overall, is about as accurate as Brittanica.

Wikipedia is now requiring authentication for new posts, though you can make still anonymous updates to existing content. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's fearless leader, has said he doesn't want to pursue strong verification of identity, and that Wikipedia should be assessed on the quality of the content, and not identity or reputation.

Is Wikipedia an authoritative source? The Nature study suggests accuracy comparable to Brittanica's – and what source of information will ever be wholly authoritative? Wikipedia actually has advantages: bringing collective intelligence to bear means more minds and more perspectives are represented, and this would tend to mitigate bias. Wikipedia is also more current, and has articles on subjects you would never find in Brittanica. However there's always going to be lag between publication and editorial review, and in some cases (like Seigenthaler's) bad information will find its way into an article and linger. I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a single authoritative source (though I often use it as a reference, and link to its articles).

(BTW, fans of Wikipedia should note there's a fund drive under way.)

jon posted this at 10:10 PM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

 Subscribe to RSS feed for Weblogsky