What Exactly is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a controversial and revolutionary free online “encyclopedia” that allows its users to edit most of the available entries. The debate concerning the quality of Wikipedia has been the subject of many news articles lately, including the public controversy concerning the false biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. Additionally, there has been a well publicized debate concerning the rigor of a recent study conducted by the periodical Nature which suggested that Wikipedia was of comparable quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, a more fundamental question than accuracy is “What exactly is Wikipedia?” Wikipedia can be perceived as either an information resource or as the community of users actively involved in its creation.
First, Wikipedia can be conceived of as an information resource. As information resource Wikipedia does a good job of being relatively complete, having a wide availability, and a high degree of interactivity (Sanger, 2006). Wikipedia has managed to grow at an almost unbelievable rate by allowing all its users the ability to create and edit practically any article. This has made it a relatively complete information source by allowing it to address topics thought to be too unimportant for space limited encyclopedias. Wikipedia sidesteps the bottle necking process that slows down traditional publications, in which a few editors confirm the quality of many articles, by allowing anyone that views the site to edit its content. This process has allowed for the creation of over 1,000,000 English language contributions with its size constrained only by hard disk space (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).
Additionally, its high level of interactivity, by allowing it’s users to interact via the editing of entries, creates an environment where users are able to learn large amounts of information (Sanger, 2006). Furthermore this interaction benefits future users by theoretically improving the quality of information available. While Wikipedia is less interactive that information resources such as librarians or professors, the use of hyperlinks makes Wikipedia more interactive than books, films, or audio recordings. Hyperlinks allow users to reorder information in creative ways not intended by the original author. Finally, it can be accessed by anyone with a device capable of accessing the internet and is available in 123 active language editions. As a result it has the widest audience currently possible (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).
Wikipedia functions on the principle of “radical collaboration” that encourages constant editing in order to achieve polished articles. While constant revision of articles by many individuals may lead to a more complete and interactive project, editors with little expertise in their area of revision can detract from an article’s accuracy. Although Wikipedia is often compared to open source software projects, this is an inappropriate metaphor. For example, Wikipedia, unlike open source projects, does not have any mechanism in place to ensure that its articles are accurate. Open source projects go through a two-step process in which code is solicited from many individuals and then compiled by an editor to ensure the stability of the code (Stross, 2006).
Co-creator Larry Sanger, who currently believes Wikipedia is inadequate as an information resource, has said that Wikipedia was “pretty good for what it is”. However, what it is a random aggregate of smart people that do not necessarily have any expertise and who resist the expert’s efforts to clarify and correct information (Sanger, Lecture). He proposes that future information resources should more closely mirror open source projects in that they defer to a pool of experts who will judge whether content is appropriate to include. Wikipedia historically has resisted according any special editorial authority to experts and maintains firmly committed to a somewhat anarchical spirit of collaboration in which anyone may edit anything.
Rather than being perceived as an information resource, Wikipedia may also be considered a community of users. Individuals that work on Wikipedia and perceive it as a community rather than as an information resource may value the processes through which articles emerge over the articles themselves. Social norms, such as revision of other user’s text and the somewhat egalitarian distribution of authority, which were founded at Wikipedia’s inception, are very well rooted. Therefore, it is not surprising that suggesting that a minority, such as academics, should be given deference has met with resistance. Furthermore, since academics are likely to be a minority of contributors on Wikipedia, they may be seen as an out-group with whom the majority is in competition.
One important weakness of Wikipedia as a community is that it fails to safeguard against certain abuses (Sanger, 2006). Indeed, one critique of Wikipedia’s accuracy is that what evolves via collaboration is not necessarily representative of factual information but rather a consensus of collaborator views concerning a subject. For example, contested articles may be subject to editing wars in which several individuals monitor an article and constantly revert it to a format that reflects personal opinion or a special interest (Sanger, 2004). Abuses such as these serve to
diminish the value of the article as a resource available to the public.
Several aspects of Wikipedia’s structure as a community may make it especially resistant to developing voluntary cooperation in creating truly accurate articles. First, it has been found that small groups were more likely to cooperate voluntarily during experimental games than larger groups. Additionally, in larger groups unless coercive measures or social sanctions are employed to spur individuals “rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” (Rheingold, 2002, pg. 35). Wikipedia may be particularly susceptible to special interests because the number of contributors is extremely large and it does not provide social sanctions to individuals who abuse the system. Second, edits may be made to Wikipedia anonymously with only an IP address available to identify the contributor. This hinders Wikipedia because reputation and identity serve to maintain social contracts by allowing social pressure to be exerted on an individual who does not act for the common good (Rheingold, 2002).
Wikipedia can be viewed as either an information resource or as the community of users that surrounds it. If the focus of Wikipedia is on community, the ultimate accuracy of its articles is of less importance than the processes and the collaborative efforts through which they emerge. However, the Wikipedians have clearly defined their goal; they seek to create an online reference source. As such in order to develop credibility they must restructure their community so that users are identifiable and a graduated system of social sanctions exists to deal with problem participants. In the absence of these changes efforts must be made to increase the public’s media literacy and to encourage the development of alternative reference sources that take these factors into account.
Works Cited
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: the next social revolution. Cambridge , MA: Perseus.
Sanger, L. (December 31, 2004). Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Viewed March 2006.
Sanger, L. (2006). The Future of Free Information.
Stross, R. (2006). Anonymous Source is not the same as open source. New York Times, March 12.
Wikipedia. Article on www.wikipedia.org. Viewed March 2006.
Wikipedia is a controversial and revolutionary free online “encyclopedia” that allows its users to edit most of the available entries. The debate concerning the quality of Wikipedia has been the subject of many news articles lately, including the public controversy concerning the false biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. Additionally, there has been a well publicized debate concerning the rigor of a recent study conducted by the periodical Nature which suggested that Wikipedia was of comparable quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, a more fundamental question than accuracy is “What exactly is Wikipedia?” Wikipedia can be perceived as either an information resource or as the community of users actively involved in its creation.
First, Wikipedia can be conceived of as an information resource. As information resource Wikipedia does a good job of being relatively complete, having a wide availability, and a high degree of interactivity (Sanger, 2006). Wikipedia has managed to grow at an almost unbelievable rate by allowing all its users the ability to create and edit practically any article. This has made it a relatively complete information source by allowing it to address topics thought to be too unimportant for space limited encyclopedias. Wikipedia sidesteps the bottle necking process that slows down traditional publications, in which a few editors confirm the quality of many articles, by allowing anyone that views the site to edit its content. This process has allowed for the creation of over 1,000,000 English language contributions with its size constrained only by hard disk space (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).
Additionally, its high level of interactivity, by allowing it’s users to interact via the editing of entries, creates an environment where users are able to learn large amounts of information (Sanger, 2006). Furthermore this interaction benefits future users by theoretically improving the quality of information available. While Wikipedia is less interactive that information resources such as librarians or professors, the use of hyperlinks makes Wikipedia more interactive than books, films, or audio recordings. Hyperlinks allow users to reorder information in creative ways not intended by the original author. Finally, it can be accessed by anyone with a device capable of accessing the internet and is available in 123 active language editions. As a result it has the widest audience currently possible (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).
Wikipedia functions on the principle of “radical collaboration” that encourages constant editing in order to achieve polished articles. While constant revision of articles by many individuals may lead to a more complete and interactive project, editors with little expertise in their area of revision can detract from an article’s accuracy. Although Wikipedia is often compared to open source software projects, this is an inappropriate metaphor. For example, Wikipedia, unlike open source projects, does not have any mechanism in place to ensure that its articles are accurate. Open source projects go through a two-step process in which code is solicited from many individuals and then compiled by an editor to ensure the stability of the code (Stross, 2006).
Co-creator Larry Sanger, who currently believes Wikipedia is inadequate as an information resource, has said that Wikipedia was “pretty good for what it is”. However, what it is a random aggregate of smart people that do not necessarily have any expertise and who resist the expert’s efforts to clarify and correct information (Sanger, Lecture). He proposes that future information resources should more closely mirror open source projects in that they defer to a pool of experts who will judge whether content is appropriate to include. Wikipedia historically has resisted according any special editorial authority to experts and maintains firmly committed to a somewhat anarchical spirit of collaboration in which anyone may edit anything.
Rather than being perceived as an information resource, Wikipedia may also be considered a community of users. Individuals that work on Wikipedia and perceive it as a community rather than as an information resource may value the processes through which articles emerge over the articles themselves. Social norms, such as revision of other user’s text and the somewhat egalitarian distribution of authority, which were founded at Wikipedia’s inception, are very well rooted. Therefore, it is not surprising that suggesting that a minority, such as academics, should be given deference has met with resistance. Furthermore, since academics are likely to be a minority of contributors on Wikipedia, they may be seen as an out-group with whom the majority is in competition.
One important weakness of Wikipedia as a community is that it fails to safeguard against certain abuses (Sanger, 2006). Indeed, one critique of Wikipedia’s accuracy is that what evolves via collaboration is not necessarily representative of factual information but rather a consensus of collaborator views concerning a subject. For example, contested articles may be subject to editing wars in which several individuals monitor an article and constantly revert it to a format that reflects personal opinion or a special interest (Sanger, 2004). Abuses such as these serve to
diminish the value of the article as a resource available to the public.
Several aspects of Wikipedia’s structure as a community may make it especially resistant to developing voluntary cooperation in creating truly accurate articles. First, it has been found that small groups were more likely to cooperate voluntarily during experimental games than larger groups. Additionally, in larger groups unless coercive measures or social sanctions are employed to spur individuals “rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” (Rheingold, 2002, pg. 35). Wikipedia may be particularly susceptible to special interests because the number of contributors is extremely large and it does not provide social sanctions to individuals who abuse the system. Second, edits may be made to Wikipedia anonymously with only an IP address available to identify the contributor. This hinders Wikipedia because reputation and identity serve to maintain social contracts by allowing social pressure to be exerted on an individual who does not act for the common good (Rheingold, 2002).
Wikipedia can be viewed as either an information resource or as the community of users that surrounds it. If the focus of Wikipedia is on community, the ultimate accuracy of its articles is of less importance than the processes and the collaborative efforts through which they emerge. However, the Wikipedians have clearly defined their goal; they seek to create an online reference source. As such in order to develop credibility they must restructure their community so that users are identifiable and a graduated system of social sanctions exists to deal with problem participants. In the absence of these changes efforts must be made to increase the public’s media literacy and to encourage the development of alternative reference sources that take these factors into account.
Works Cited
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: the next social revolution. Cambridge , MA: Perseus.
Sanger, L. (December 31, 2004). Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Viewed March 2006.
Sanger, L. (2006). The Future of Free Information.
Stross, R. (2006). Anonymous Source is not the same as open source. New York Times, March 12.
Wikipedia. Article on www.wikipedia.org. Viewed March 2006.
