1. Kyle Hasselbacher on September 17, 2004 1:07 PM writes...

I've always assumed that Wikipedia entries "sound the same" because they all follow the same style guide, but your question seems to be more of a statement, lamenting the fact that Wikipedia entries contain only the opinions that generate the least controversy.

There are times that I think such a source is useful. I recall trying to find information on Amway years ago when my then-roommate was becoming involved with it. What I found was no objective opinions. Every discussion of it was totally biased one way or the other, and I found it difficult to discover the balance I sought.

Perhaps on a disputed entry, the wikipedia could have sections for each "side" of a debate. Rather than have two pages, put the arguments right next to each other. Institute social rules that discourage holders of one opinion from editing the words of holders of an opposite opinion. The problem I have with this is that there can be many many sides to any topic. Ultimately I think the consensus will be the most readable, but I understand that my opinion is not shared by all.

2. Euan Semple on September 17, 2004 1:28 PM writes...

If they (we) can't achieve the stated objective of NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) then they (we) attempt to reflect differing views fairly on the page and let readers make their own decisions.

I agree though that this gets harder the more views are expressed

3. Cog on September 17, 2004 2:09 PM writes...

Re: "Perhaps multiple truths deserve multiple pages," I believe you just described Wikinfo, probably the most interesting current fork of Wikipedia. See "How we differ from Wikipedia and why".

See also the George W. Bush article, which contains a link to George W. Bush critical views.

4. Abe on September 17, 2004 4:00 PM writes...

There are many Wikipedia articles that seem to stay constant. As such, they seem to be products of the Wikipedia process. When a chaotic article like [[GW Bush]] appears, the fact that it is chaotic implies that the Wikipedia process that produced it is broken. David notices this, and suggests a tweak to the process to allow it to produce "better" articles.

The problem with David's observation is that Wikipedia cannot be divided into process and product. Every Wikipedia article is in constant flux. Articles which seem to stay constant are only in a state of less relative flux. The fact that [[GW Bush]] is in relatively high flux shows that it is viewed differently by many people and/or it is changing faster than we can describe it; it doesn't mean that the Wikipedia process is broken.

It may be more coherent to think of Wikipedia as a conversation. Each change in Wikipedia is the latest utterance in that conversation. So, when one sees [[GW Bush]] swing between "Bush the Strong" and "Bush the Demonic", one is evesdropping on the back-and-forth of a particular discussion. By keeping all the participants together in [[GW Bush]] Wikipedia forces all sides to keep communicating with each other. To break [[GW Bush]] into sub-categories is to create echo chambers, which (as David points out) the WWW is already good enough at doing on its own.

David is also right that "there isn’t only one truth about Bush. Or about anything, for that matter." There is only communication of points of view. At root, Wikipedia models this.

5. phil jones on September 18, 2004 10:48 AM writes...

Surely Wikipedia doesn't need to *be* the web in miniature. If it was, why would we need it? Every webpage would be part of webipedia.

There's something that makes a wikipedia page interesting and distinct. And that thing must come from both the community and the "rules of engagement" and the style guide.

The next wiki / community might have a very different opinion mediated through it's different rules.

6. Mark Federman on September 18, 2004 12:58 PM writes...

Abe is right when he speaks of Wikipedia as a conversation, but so too are commented and "trackedback" and interlinked blogs. One can think of the distinction between blogs and wikis as illustrated in the GWB see-saw as the difference between "connected intelligence" a la Derrick de Kerckhove, and "collective intelligence" a la Pierre Lévy. Blogs connect multiple voices that are each amplified by the blog process. The voices are distinct, but come together to create an emergent voice that nonetheless retains the individual components. The action of wiki is more collective, creating an emergent single voice from among its contributors. In the "ideal" wiki entry, individual voice would not be heard; rather it would be the voice of the collective of contributors.

This spectrum from connected to collective is a useful one, in that it spans and connects two distinct phenomena that the multi-way Internet enables. And clearly, this spectrum of voice is a distinguishing characteristic, quite separate from effects created by uni-directional broadcast communication.

7. Ross Mayfield on September 18, 2004 1:22 PM writes...

One resolution technique is to agree on a lowest common denominator NPOV definition and then link to opposing definitions on seperate pages. There is infinite space in a wiki, use it.

8. Judson on September 18, 2004 7:28 PM writes...

I think phil makes a good point. Wikipedia does not need to be, and should not be a microcosm for the wider internet. Wikipedia has a specific goal, to create a free wiki-based, many user edited encyclopedia, and to that end many policies have been created. Pages get deleted, things are censored based on majority view, and consensus is required. These are not ideals of the wider internet.

There are serious debates about factual information, and it is entirely within the confines of neutrality to mention those debates. However, while there may be many points of view about information, there are not an infinite number of truths. If I want information about Winston Churchill, while some person may think he is 1500 years old from the planet Kronos, that is not true. I do not want to be faced with a page of hundreds of possible "truths" about things. I would like objective information that has been looked at by people that know about it.

The ideals of the internet are at odds with creating a simple easy-to-use encyclopedia of objective factual information. The goals of the internet-at-large are much more amorphous, dealing with general communication. There is no reason to expect WIkipedia, a website within the wider internet, to share the ideals of the whole, especially since their goals are almost entirely unrelated.