Has Wikipedia signed its own death sentence?If you’ve always thought that Wikipedia was this great bastion of Web 2.0-edness, with ideas of the site being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you’ve probably thought wrong all this time. While I’ve always had an inkling that Wikipedia was probably not what it markets itself to be, I still tried to make myself believe that it’s still good in terms of being a contributor-driven site, in that more or less anyone can simply click on the edit button and post his or her contibutions to any entry.
That can’t be farther from the truth.
That’s marketing for us, I guess. All that buzz about how Wikipedia has radically changed how knowledge is built up, organized and archived–it’s mostly just hype. There have been a lot of theories and commentary trying to debunk the “Wikipedia myth,” and this one posted recently by Nicholas Carr on roughtype.com summarizes it all too well.
… Wikipedia is an amazing achievement, with considerable strengths and considerable weaknesses. But it has become wrapped in a cloak of myth that many people, for whatever reason, seem intent on perpetuating. Wikipedia is not an egalitarian collective. It is not an example of mob rule. It is not an expression of collective intelligence. It is not an emergent system. What might in fact be most interesting about Wikipedia as an organization is the way it has evolved, as it has pursued its goal of matching the quality of Encyclopedia Britannica, toward a more traditional editorial, and even corporate, structure. We need to bury the Wikipedia myth if we’re to see what Wikipedia is and what it isn’t – and what it portends for the organization and economics of content creation in the years ahead.
Wikipedia isn’t actually the free-for-all site it attempts to define itself to be, as on its about page.
This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link (with a few minor exceptions, such as protected articles and the main page).
Not anyone can just edit stuff on Wikipedia, after all. There is a perfectly bureaucratic and hierarchical means by which articles and editions are managed. And Wikipedia’s owner, Jimmy Wales is on top of the “power pyramid!”
Nick earlier wrote that Wikipedia never claimed that anyone could just edit anything.
Jimmy Wales informs me that in fact there was never a time when “anyone could edit anything on Wikipedia,” as I originally wrote. “There have always been restrictions on editing,” he says. I guess I made the mistake, as others may have as well, of taking literally Wikipedia’s slogan that it is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
However, this point, IMHO, is much-downplayed on Wikipedia’s about page, or at least you aren’t likely to pick up this point at first glance/reading.
Wikipedia just recently went from being this site where the editors used to try to protect against vandalism to now trying not to be excessively protectionist (meaning henceforth many articles would start out semi-protected in the first place).
So much for being “written collaboratively by people from all around the world.”
[Thanks to Corsarius for the link]
No prob, JAngelo. Great points here. Though of course Wikipedia still remains a prime source for information ;) The pic really fits the bill, btw.
About the power pyramid thing.
Everybody can EDIT wikipedia. It just gets checked. Also wouldn’t you want to be incharge of a site that YOU are responsible for?
No big issue for me. Besides, I look at this at some legal-speak just to protect Wikipedia from some person suing Wikipedia to get some bucks. I’ve always been updating articles, removing erroneous ones, and generally articles can be edited by anyone. I encountered some articles which were already “closed.” I’ve also encountered a situation where I could not post an update: when I tried putting a personal website in the external links. Wiki removed it in a matter of seconds. No big thing for me.
No, Wikipedia is not signing it’s death sentence. I don’t see the point you are trying to make here that proves that.
I am aware of the fact that literally everyone can edit wikipedia, but even after a everyday use for past couple of months, I did not come across a signle article which was not written in a good language, helpfull and very objective even in some very controversial cases. So, i think that current system is working out pretty well ;)
On those occasions when I run into something I know (or would be researching anyway) that isn’t covered, my contributions are accepted with little fuss. Editors occasionally clean things up a bit, and of course sometimes someone else with broader knowledge expands an article and runs with it, but I can say as an end user that every time I’ve tried to add, correct or improve information, I’ve been freely able to do so.
Thanks for the comments, eveyone.
@Corsarius, yes it stil serves as a great resource for me. Though the idealism in me has waned, sadly.
@Ahmer, about the “power pyramid,” let me put it this way. If I were the owner of Wikipedia, I could edit certain articles to my advantage. Say, I’m an advocate of a certain ideology, I could rewrite or lock articles to have a slant or bias towards that ideology.
Or if not the owner, maybe there could be a rogue higher-level editor that can control things as such.
@Monsolo, that’s a good point. Wikipedia had been subject of several lawsuits already. Perhaps it also needs to wash its hands clean of liability, or probably protect itself from the possibility of people putting in defamatory writeups.
@Ian, the owner just emailed his entire team saying why don’t we just lock all the important articles for the meantime, for simplicity’s sake? or something to that effect. That, I believe, is simply too drastic a move, and against Wikipedia’s supposed ideals at that.
@Borko, well, I still do consider Wikipedia as a great resource of information.
@Dan, try editing “George W. Bush.” :P I agree that with the lesser-controversial or minor topics, it’s usually a trivial matter to edit articles. But for the entries of controversy or higher importance, then that’s where it gets a bit more complicated.
According to Clay Shirky, the decreased openness of Wikipedia is a consequent of its success, not a sign of failure. It’s death is greatly exaggerated.
So you’re complaining because editors try and maintain a balanced view on controversial topics?
The benefits of Wikipedia is that it’s a large, open repository of information built from the community. That doesn’t imply that everyone’s opinion or ideas on a subject gets (or deserves) equal space in an entry. It means the cream of the crop of information gets on the page. The most informative, balanced information out there, which almost by definition means a hierarchy of control in the site. There has been a shroud of myth circling around about Wikipedia being an anarchist experiment, but to say that because this isn’t the case all of a sudden the value of the information on Wikipedia has dropped doesn’t make sense.
@John, that’s understood–the fact that not everyone’s opinion deserves mention. In fact, it’s not supposed to be opinion written on Wikipedia, but fact, isn’t it?
At any rate, I’m not complaining. And if I were, it woudn’t be because they’re trying to maintain a balanced view. They always have, and this is perfectly acceptable!
But they’ve always done the editions post-fact, meaning if someone posts some crappy edition to one entry, the editors would promptly revert to the more acceptable state, or edit accordingly.
This time, though, they’re blanket-banning IPs from certain locations from making any editions, and they’re blanket-protecting certain articles such that they cannot be edited outright.
It’s a myth, all right, and this is as good as the myth of DIGG’s being a fully reader/contributor-driven site. :P
Here’s what I think about this “myth” in general.
You know, if I had actual *new* information to add to the George W. Bush page, and I could cite a reputable source, and I added it to the talk page with ready-to-use text, I have little doubt I could get the information into the article. Now, if I suggested they change the lead-in to “George W. Bush is the tyrant currently waging war from his den of evil, and the former governor of Texas, which is a state full of stupid people,” I have little doubt I would fail.
Regardless, I don’t think the fact that it’s more difficult to edit highly important and controversial articles really takes away from Wikipedia being a contributor-driven site). Nor does it somehow put the lie to their slogan.
I think it’s interesting to compare the Wikipedia quotes to your interpretations. They say “anyone can edit, correct or improve information throughout the encyclopedia.” You complain that not anyone can “just edit stuff,” and you say they’re claiming to be a “free-for-all.”
In the e-mail you link to, Jimmy Wales suggests that semi-protection is an acceptable tool for vandalism-prone articles “because the threshold to editing is still quite low for anyone who seriously wants to join the dialogue.” You turn this into “So much for being ‘written collaboratively by people from all around the world.’”
You’re using very, very strong language here — “death sentence,” “can’t be farther from the truth,” etc. If your only argument is that there are some barriers against drive-through edits on “entries of controversy or higher importance,” then you’re making a fool of yourself. Is there some other point that I’m missing?
Do you know what semi-protection is? It means you must have an account to edit, and the account can’t have been created in the last 96 hours. It prevents drive-by vandalism, not serious collaboration.
Got your point about semi-protection, Dan. Still, from the same Wikipedia semi-protection policy,
Get a hold of your self Angelo.
Even if some of the information wikipedia is putting out there is questionable it is still a great site. It has vast amounts of information that none of you could comprehend.
fokin queers wikipedia blows my mind!!!!!
we dont got no edu,cation
dude, you’re not even the first. not the first to speak against the rightness of wikipedia, or to speak against the rightness of any other big something. if you do that often, like rising your “personal opinions” against the sharks of the day maybe you should talk to a psychologist (make a difference, please: i didn’t said psychiatrist, so don’t flame on me, ok?).
wikipedia is founded, edited and sustained by humans, therefore it has cracks and holes there and there. as long as it is free and full of valuable information, please take your guns anywhere else. apeak against microsoft, or apple, for example.
have a nice day :)