For at least the past year now, you can’t read a story about Web 2.0 and the Internet without reading about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great site. It’s a great reference. It’s free.
But, it’s just not as Important (capital “I”) as people make it out to be. It’s touted as the Wisdom of Crowds or the knowledge of the masses, but after further analysis, it was found that the vast majority of the content on the site was generated by 1000 people. That’s right, just 1000. Now, who exactly are these people? Are they professors of history, biology, physics, and the other deeply technical topics they cover? Unlikely, because those people get paid to do what they do. They write books and research papers and do research, and reference primary sources. Perhaps they even write encyclopedias…
So who’s contributing to Wikipedia? Schmoes. I’m not saying these people are dumb or uneducated, but they’re…regular people. Maybe they have a few history books or other textbooks they consult (or, I hesitate to suggest, an encyclopedia). Maybe they’re some professor’s research assistants. Maybe they’re just passionate about the topic. I respect their work and their passion, but when it comes down to it, I can’t trust Wikipedia with information that absolutely has to be correct, particularly current events. It’s not a news site, and it shouldn’t try to be one. If I need to know what year Lincoln died, I’ll go to Wikipedia. But if I want to know about a topic that’s current, hotly debated or deeply technical, I will find other sources.
I do love the spirit of Wikipedia, the collective effort to document human history and science, but we’ve seen more and more incidents where it has been abused by unscrupulous users. You never know when something isn’t quite as impartial as it seems or is a deliberate effort to smear someone. Truthiness indeed.
What’s the solution for Wikipedia? It seems that to control quality, they will need to limit their contributors to a small, trusted group. When you rely on a small, trusted group, however, you often need to pay them, and what will you have then?
And lastly, I’ll point out another disturbing trend in journalism.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Agreed. Did you watch the Steve Colbert when he discussed the wikipedia’s lack of accuracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao
Yes, it’s brilliant! [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7W42aE9kao]
The funny thing is so many users on Answerbag refer to wikipedia on a constant basis to answer questions.
Wikipedia is not bad — it just can’t be trusted for critical information — but what can be? If you need critical information, you check many sources to make sure your facts are straight. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a problem on Wikipedia — jeesh — Bob Blaylock and I both used it to present opposing opinions on astrology — so — I’d say, that makes Wikipedia a pretty neutral source.
Joel — I loved that ending… very clever! However — there’s another downside — traditional media outlets pay their workers, so they need to raise money, so they’re biased by revenue considerations. Citizen journalism and wikiality are important trends because they point to a world where revenue considerations aren’t part of the formula for presenting information .
PS… this just in: C|Net on wikipedia…
http://news.com.com/2010-1038_3-6104446.html?part=rss&tag=6104446&subj=news
… Bad things can happen when “people without brains use information written by people without consciences” …
Peter, it’s true that having a not-for-profit media source alleviates the issue of money-induced bias, however, when anyone’s allowed to edit, it becomes open to ALL biases. Sometimes people who are unpaid are the most vocal about their biases (we’ve seen this on Answerbag). People who are paid have an incentive to try to stay as unbiased as their bosses ask them to be. In that case it comes down to how much we trust the company that’s paying the editors.
It does always comes down to trust — and I agree, the people that work “for free”, of course they have an agenda too. Though, I find they tend to wear it on their sleeve (myself included), so it’s much easier to recognize. They may not cover news they want to hide, but, almost for sure, there will be someone there to fill that void.
Even so, if we’re going to make claims we should be able to verify them with independent sources (that’s a plural!).