Wikipedia

Introduction

The words and concepts wiki (a technology for creating collaborative web sites) and encyclopedia were combined to form Wikipedia, one of the Internet’s grandest phenomena. Wikipedia’s article about itself begins, “Wikipedia . . . is a free, multilingual, open content encyclopedia project generated by the United States-based non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. . . . Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language.”

Wikipedia will never meet its goal, which is obviously impossible. Instead, it has to settle for reigning as the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. With over ten million articles in over 250 languages, Wikipedia ranks among the ten most popular web sites and is the only non-profit site in that group.

One could almost argue that Wikipedia has taken over Google, as its articles frequently rank first in the search engine. For example, typing “Bill Gates” into Google on July 29, 2008 yielded 28,300,000 results, with Wikipedia (Bill Gates) in first place. Wikipedia’s article Earth ranked second (after Google Earth) out of 557,000,000 hits.

Not surprisingly, Wikipedia is also an extraordinary and fiercely debated social phenomenon. In particular, its accuracy and bias are hotly disputed. Wikipedia has also become a major player in the political arena, a venue rife with bias and vandalism. On the other hand, its collaborative nature is in keeping with the original spirit of the Internet.

Whether Wikipedia continues to dominate online references, is toppled by the competition or simply settles for third place, it has carved its place in history as an audacious, Herculean experiment.

History

The creation of the Internet inspired many people to attempt to develop online encyclopedias. One notable experiment was Nupedia, an expert-written English-language encyclopedia established by Jimmy Wales.

Just twelve articles were written during Nupedia’s first year. To speed things up, Wales decided to employ wiki technology, which allows people to write, edit and publish articles independently.

Nupedia’s editors and reviewers balked at the idea of associating their project with a wiki-style web site. Larry Sanger (Nupedia’s editor-in-chief) suggested giving the new project its own name, Wikipedia. It was formally launched on 15 January 2001.

Though originally designed to complement Nupedia, Wikipedia quickly evolved into a much larger global project, spawning a wide range of additional reference projects. Growth was rapid as it was flooded with new articles - 1,000 around February 12, 2001; 10,000 around September 7 and 20,000 during its first year of existence. High rankings in the Google search engine helped accelerate Wikipedia’s growth.

As it grew, Wikipedia also diversified, taking on a more international flavor. Today, less than 25% of Wikipedia articles are featured on English versions.

Sanger, a graduate philosophy student, left both Nupedia and Wikipedia in March 2002 over philosophical differences regarding Wikipedia’s basic operating principles. Wales believes in communal governance and “hands off” executive management. Sanger advocated a “two tier” expert-led culture and more “hands on” executive management. In 2006, he founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia which uses real names for contributors.

Wikipedia continues to grow, seemingly impervious to criticism, occasional censorship (it has been blocked on some occasions by national authorities representing the People’s Republic of China Iran, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Syria) and competition. In 2008, Wikipedia remained the biggest and most popular online reference by far. Even a worthy competitor would likely need a few years merely to generate enough content to knock Wikipedia off its perch.

Description

Wikipedia article pages are coded in XHTML 1.0 Transitional. A typical Wikipedia entry’s web page consists of two columns. A small column on the left features Wikipedia-related tools and links. The article appears in a much wider column.

The article begins with the title, followed by the byline “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” An image and/or a table listing some quick facts often appear floated to the right of the first paragraph.

At the bottom of the introductory text is a light gray Contents box, floated to the left. Users can click this box to collapse (“hide”) it.

Images and tables are usually floated to the right of subsequent text, which often features citations. Images are generally linked to pages that disclose their source and legal status, along with a description. Many images, including at least some in the public domain, are classified in Wikimedia Commons.

Various words and terms, including dates, are automatically linked to related Wikipedia entries.

Historian Roy Rosenzweig noted: “Overall, writing is the Achilles’ heel of Wikipedia. Committees rarely write well, and Wikipedia entries often have a choppy quality that results from the stringing together of sentences or paragraphs written by different people.”

A variety of related resources are listed at the bottom of the page.

Editing Model

Wikipedia entries are anonymous in that the name of the author(s) and contributors aren’t listed. Entries are owned by no one and do not undergo a formal peer-review process. Changes to entries are available immediately.

Wikipedia doesn’t censor itself, and it contains materials that some people may find objectionable.

Each entry must focus on a topic that is encyclopedic. In addition, it must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized. Its terms state, “Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.”

Theoretically, Wikipedia doesn’t take sides; in principle, all viewpoints must be given consideration.

Operations

Wikipedia is funded and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. According to Wikipedia, “The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley.”

License

According to Wikipedia’s article about itself, “All text in Wikipedia is covered by GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work. . . . Wikipedia has been working on the switch to Creative Commons licenses because the GFDL, initially designed for software manuals, is not suitable for online reference works and because the two licenses are currently incompatible.”

Policies towards the use of images vary because of differences in copyright laws between countries. Some language editions, including the English Wikipedia, include non-free image files under fair use doctrine.

Related Projects

Wikipedia has spawned several sister projects. The most notable include Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikimedia, Wikibooks and Wikiversity.

Wikipedia alumnus Larry Sanger founded the online encyclopedia Citizendium.

Competition

Wikipedia’s sheer size and its entrenchment in the public consciousness would intimidate most would be competitors.

In 2006, Andrew Schlafly (son of the right-wing Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) launched a shot over the bow in the form of Conservapedia. He said Conservapedia was a response to Wikipedia’s “liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.”

The reason Conservapedia has gained little traction can probably be surmised by an article about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus and another entry that stated, “Modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark prior to the Great Flood.”

Can you guess which article was a fraud? The tree octopus piece was an Internet hoax. The article about Middle Eastern kangaroos was serious.

A more credible competitor is the online encyclopedia Citizendium, established by Wikipedia alumnus Larry Sanger. Sanger hopes to encourage higher quality content by scrapping Wikipedia’s anonymity and loose quality control.

Jimmy Wales said in an interview, “We welcome a diversity of efforts. If Larry’s project is able to produce good work, we will benefit from it by copying it back into Wikipedia.”

In July 2008, Google launched a new project called Knol. Like Citizendium, it allows authors to sign their names to their articles as well as list their qualifications. More than one article about a particular topic can be written, with visitors voting on their favorites.

Criticism

Opinions of Wikipedia vary wildly. No one can dispute the overall success of an online giant that has become a household word, a reference consulted by scientists, terrorists and ordinary people alike.

But there has also been much criticism of Wikipedia. In particular, people question its accuracy and bias.

A number of web sites and organizations have been created to monitor or criticize Wikipedia. Some are right-wing entities, ranging from politically biased to downright bizarre, appealing primarily to fellow right-wing religious kooks. But web sites like Wikipedia Watch and WikiSucks (a blog) are worth examining, keeping in mind that Wikipedia critics can be inaccurate and biased themselves.

Accuracy

The anonymity of Wikipedia articles, and its seemingly lax quality control - notably a relative lack of any method for screening contributors - is of special concern. If a drunk who never finished high school wants to edit an article about some rare medical condition, it can be done.

The prestigious journal Nature conducted a study comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica. Errors were found in both, though Wikipedia had slightly more. The study concluded that the two references were roughly equal in terms of accuracy.

Nature and Encyclopedia Britannica both corrected some of their entries following the study. However, Encyclopedia Britannica vigorously disputed the study and demanded that Nature retract it.

Overall, various studies suggest that Wikipedia is in fact remarkably accurate. The German computer magazine c’t gave Wikipedia a 3.6 rating out of 5 for accuracy, easily beating Microsoft Encarta, which received a 3.1.

However, some studies and observers have commented on vague statements that are difficult to prove or disprove, along with content that can be variously described as superfluous or downright “weird.”

Of course, Wikipedia doesn’t guarantee the accuracy of its articles, and one must expect occasional bombshells. Prominent U.S. journalist John Seigenthaler attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

Seigenthaler didn’t sue the man responsible for the hoax, and Wikipedia’s policies were modified to help guard against such incidents. Seigenthaler stated his concern that Wikipedia’s policies might contribute to a government crackdown on the Internet.

After reading a Wikipedia entry about himself that he claims was false and unflattering, Daniel Brandt founded the web site Wikipedia Watch. Daniel Terdiman of ZDNet described the site as “a sometimes paranoid, sometimes rational Web site that seeks to keep the project honest.” Amazingly, Wikipedia’s article about Wikipedia Watch doesn’t even include a link to the web site (as of July 29, 2008).

In general, it’s probably a safe assumption that Wikipedia articles about controversial topics are more likely to be inaccurate, with politics especially raising a red flag. Indeed, the sanitation of Wikipedia articles by political interests is a well known phenomenon.

Bias

Eliminating bias from articles - especially political content - is one of journalism’s oldest challenges. If bias cannot be removed from an article, it helps if the author’s bias is at least evident. In other words, readers should be aware of an article’s “slant.” But the anonymous nature of WIkipedia articles makes this a guessing game.

This is especially apparent in the political arena, where articles have been actively sanitized or vandalized to promote various agendas or to simply protect public figures from embarrassment.

Wikipedia’s article about George W. Bush doesn’t feature the words traitor, treason, war criminal or war crimes (as of July 29, 2008). It might be argued that such words merely indicate opinions, as Bush has never been officially convicted of treason or war crimes.

Nevertheless, Bush is widely regarded as a traitor (or a corporate operative) and a war criminal. This is a fact, not an opinion, one that could and should be mentioned in an article about Bush. For example, one could write, “George W. Bush is widely regarded as a corporate operative, traitor and war criminal.”

One of Wikipedia’s biggest controversies relates to political interests sanitizing potentially embarrassing articles, compromising their accuracy and rendering them biased at the same time.

Liberal Bias

Conservative elements often complain about Wikipedia’s “liberal bias.” The seriousness of this perceived bias of course depends largely on one’s political beliefs. Liberals are likely to either welcome liberal bias or not see it at all.

Of course, the very definition of the word liberal varies with political affiliation. Simple facts can be labeled liberal (or conservative) by people who are embarrassed or threatened by those facts.

It could be surmised that at least some of Wikipedia’s content is actually an example of conservative, or corporate, bias. Some of it could even be cleverly presented in a manner that makes it appear liberal.

For example, Wikipedia’s article about Seattle states that “Seattle’s politics are strongly progressive, although there is a small libertarian movement within the metro area” when Seattle is in fact extraordinarily corrupt and its politics strikingly regressive. The city is controlled and manipulated by corporations to a degree few people can imagine. Though King County is controlled by Democrats, they are strikingly similar to Republicans.

Though far from conclusive, this article suggests that it might have been written by corporate interests, which are generally viewed as conservative, rather than liberal. Logic suggests that these elements would want to manipulate an article about Seattle on a web site as prominent as Wikipedia.

Manipulation

It’s easy to speculate that corporate interests have infiltrated Wikipedia, just as they’ve infiltrated so many other institutions, including the media. For example, a person who works for Microsoft could easily write or edit an article about Microsoft or Bill Gates. If several Microsoft operatives teamed up, they could exert even more control over Wikipedia’s content, especially if one or more of them moved up Wikipedia’s chain of command.

It’s virtually impossible to estimate the extent to which Wikipedia is manipulated by corrupt elements. However, it is illogical to assume it is not happening given the extraordinary corruption (and manipulation) that is rampant throughout government, the media and society in general, both in “the real world” and on the Internet.

Theoretically, Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, could secretly be on Microsoft’s (or another corporation’s) payroll. It’s also possible that such organized manipulation is occurring without Wales’ consent or even without his knowledge.

Overkill

People who prefer “clean” web pages may be irritated by Wikipedia’s often messy, cluttered appearance. Articles are typically cluttered with citations, information that the average user might find too technical or esoteric, and a sometimes amazing mass of footnotes, references and related features at the bottom of the page.

A little CSS and JavaScript might help improve Wikipedia’s appearance. Some articles might also benefit from a little editing, with excess material placed on related pages.

WikiSpam

Wikipedia Watch writes, “While Wikipedia itself does not run ads, they are the most-scraped site on the web. Scrapers need content — any content will do — in order to carry ads from Google and other advertisers. This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam. It is primarily Google’s fault, since Wikipedia might find it difficult to address the issue of scraping even if they wanted to. Google doesn’t care; their ad money comes right off the top.”

In fact, people do borrow liberally from Wikipedia, which might be nicknamed the Copy and Paste Site. Although it’s refreshing that Wikipedia apparently isn’t overly litigious, Wikipedia’s contributors may indulge in plagiarism. The fact that such “stolen” information can spread like a virus over the Internet is of some concern.

Wikipedia Watch continues, “Jimmy Wales, the man behind Wikipedia, probably approves of this practice. After he made a fortune in futures trading, he started up Bomis.com in the mid-1990s. Bomis was one of the first sites to scrape the ad-free Open Directory Project, and turn it into a huge mass of paid links and ads, mixed together with porn.”

Summary

In summary, it’s probably delusional to think that anyone could create a perfect online encyclopedia. Any approach is bound to have pros and cons. Solutions include awareness of Wikipedia’s faults and competitors that use a different approach, each with its own unique bonuses and faults.

Indeed, there may be no better argument against monopolism than the need to preserve and disseminate knowledge, in all its flavors.

One intriguing solution is the evolution of a series of parallel online encyclopedias with various topics automatically linked to other references. For example, an article about George W. Bush would be linked to articles about Bush on Wikipedia, Citizendium and Knol, giving visitors and researchers a wide variety of information and diverse viewpoints and conventions to choose from.

On another note, it probably isn’t fair to place all the blame for Wikipedia’s problems on the organization. Rather, contributors and even users bear some responsibility. Just as citizens have a responsibility to support democracy by voting, so must all of us police the media - and online references. Wikipedia cannot perform at its best in an atmosphere of apathy, ignorance and stupidity.

To put it another way, a society that twice elected George W. Bush and has allowed its public education system to be effectively taken over by corporations can hardly expect online references of the highest quality.

Personal Notes

Because Knol is a new project that’s just getting off the ground, I thought it might be appropriate to include a section devoted to some personal comments and questions, which I may delete later. I’ll try to keep it brief.

First, I’d like to make it clear that I have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. I consult it more than any other reference, but, as a political activist, I think its political content is even more flawed than the public realizes. (I’m working on another knol that will illustrate just how biased and inaccurate one of Wikipedia’s most popular articles is.) I also think Wikipedia could and should be more open in admitting the problem and taking steps to correct it.

Though I’m intrigued with Knol and plan on writing more entries, I think it will probably be as badly flawed as Wikipedia. The difference is that it will be flawed in different ways. As I suggested in the main entry, it’s probably impossibly to create a perfect online reference, but several references could nicely complement each other.

I should also note that researching and writing this article forced me to take a closer look at my own practices - and I can’t claim to be perfect. I have my biases and have been guilty of sloppy research on occasions.

In my defense, I try to do a good job, and I’m generally pretty open and honest about my biases. Moreover, as both a political activist and professional writer, it’s important that I maintain my reputation for honesty. In fact, I’m running for public office even as I write this. (Here’s a link to my campaign web site.)

This particular knol is both finished and unfinished. I think it’s reasonably well researched and complete. Yet there are still a number of items I haven’t really finished investigating.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and publish it - largely so I could solicit some guidance and assistance in finishing it. Are there any glaring errors or omissions you think I should focus on?

I’m thinking of adding sections focusing on weird conventions, confusing rules and legal arrogance. If you know what I’m talking about - if we’re on the same wavelength - then I’d like to hear your observations. On the other hand, if no one has a clue what I’m talking about, then maybe my observations are too trivial to bother writing about.

Do you like the way I listed the references? Rather than clutter my article with citations, I simply listed all my references below. Though Wikipedia-style citations may be a good addition for more detailed or technical articles, creating them can be incredibly tedious. I feel that my approach makes a cleaner, more user friendly article.

What do you think of this knol’s overall appearance? I added a few CSS styles. It would be great if Google could add a feature that automatically indents paragraphs. Or do you think that would be a bad or useless idea?

I’ve linked to this article from my new web site Net Freedom and an Opera group of the same name. It might be best to make an effort to keep most discussion of this article “in-house.” On the other hand, the Net Freedom group’s blog and forums (particularly the thread Knol > Wikipedia) might better accommodate longer discussions, or discussions that stray off topic.

Thanks in advance for any feedback you care to offer.

P.S. I’m going to preserve a copy of this first draft, so we can observe how the article evolves over time.

References