Let's review the results of Wikipedia-gate:
- The perpetrator was found in less than a week.
- The item in question has been changed.
- The change has gotten a lot more publicity than the original mistake -- try getting that out of a daily newspaper.
- The person who falsified the record has lost his job.
The result: someone is trying to use lawsuits to get the site shut down. (Their registration data tells us nothing about who they are.)
So what's the problem?
The problem, Andrew Orlowski of The Register thinks, (that's him to the right) is that Wikipedia dares call itself an encyclopedia. You see, that's -pedia at the end of the word. (That's the only source for the claim I can find.)
But the front of the word is wiki. The origin is supposedly Hawaiian for "quick," but the word itself dates from 1995 -- it is wholly a product of the Web. It means "a collaborative Web site set up to allow user editing and adding of content." (By the way, Andrew, there is no Dictionary.com definition of pedia.)
Is there any claim to great authority or accuracy in that word? No. No more than what the people involved might have both together and separately.
And that's the real problem here.
Not everyone is good. Not all the time.
Sometimes people are nasty. Sometimes people lie. And sometimes (gasp) a wiki can be polluted by this. As can a newspaper.
What's remarkable isn't that John Seigenthaler Sr. (left) was maligned. What's remarkable is that the whole Wikipedia isn't filled with lies. The fact is, it's not. It should be taken with a grain of salt, like any wiki, but considering the source it's really quite good. With a little systemization, maybe a business model (and simple advertising would bring in plenty of revenue for that) this could be a nice, healthy business.
Give Wikipedia a business model, in other words, and most of its problems can be solved. The editors could be paid, their number could scale with the traffic, and there would be someone to complain to when things went wrong.
But "big media" figures -- across the board, don't want to even dare think such a thing. It would mean that, once again, their role as "authorities," as those who define truth for the rest of us, has been undermined.
If we have learned anything from the media scandals of the recent past, from Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, from Plamegate and Bob Woodward, it should be that giving anyone the absolute right to anyone define absolutely what is truth is a bad thing.
Communications is a conversation. It's one the Internet makes ever-more intimate. And in that conversation there will be liars and weasels, both on the bottom of the pyramid and at the top.
What we need is the transparency to find these lies and bring liars to account. We don't need anyone, certainly not me, and certainly not Andrew Orlowski, telling us they have "the truth." As a source for managing and distributing truth, Wikipedia is as good a source as any.
But it's only one source.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brian Thomas on December 12, 2005 02:10 PM writes...
... it should be that giving anyone the absolute right to anyone define absolutely what is truth is a bad thing.
Type slowly and chew your words ten times.
Permalink to Comment2. Seth Finkelstein on December 13, 2005 12:19 AM writes...
Regarding: "As a source for managing and distributing truth, Wikipedia is as good a source as any."
No, unless ah-hoc popularity is as good a source as educated authority - EVEN IF EDUCATED AUTHORITY ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!
I'd say it's correct not to have blind faith in anyone - but it doesn't follow that every source is as good as every other.
Permalink to Comment3. Brad Hutchings on December 13, 2005 02:49 AM writes...
An interesting experiment would be to set up a competitor to Wikipedia which was a Wiki with one restriction. No article could be longer than 300 words. And no continuing on another article. Linking would be encouraged, but only to topics sufficiently different. The problem with Wikipedia (and Wikis in general) is not whether they are factual. It's that the articles are way too long winded.
BTW, thanks for posting the picture of John Seigenthaler Sr. The part about this story that I couldn't get my head around was how the fillin guy for when Brian Williams needs to get his skin re-oranged could have possibly been old enough to off both the Kennedys. Perplexing...
Permalink to Comment4. Steve on December 13, 2005 11:56 AM writes...
Such confusion, Dana.
We don't need anyone, certainly not me, and certainly not Andrew Orlowski, telling us they have "the truth."
Permalink to CommentHe doesn't. But he has consistently pointed out the shortcomings of utopian projects like Wikipedia while you were lost in dreamy admiration for them. This improves his trust metric and diminishes yours.
5. Humanity's Child on December 14, 2005 01:03 PM writes...
If there is an error, will it be found and fixed in Wikipedia? Not on your life--not if it is a deliberate falsehood that an “editing ‘gang’” is imposing on an article. (Or, if a person with a “bee in his or her bonnet,” so to speak—a person with a lot of time and an axe to grind—keeps on rewriting their own inaccurate or libelous stuff.)
If there is a person you want to get revenge on, just log into Wikipedia and say whatever lies you wish to say on a "Talk" or Discussion Page. It will show up in Google searches, your enemy can complain as much as he or she desires, and nothing will be done by Wikipedia--if he or she is not famous.
If there is an article about him or her, the same holds true. Perhaps the Wikipedia administration has become more cautious now. I hope so.
I admire John Seigenthaler, Sr., for his intelligent response to this lack of accountability in Wikipedia.
The New York Daily News (December 13, 2005) wrote: “An entry on Russian history might come from a Nobel Prize-winning professor, or it might come from an escapee from a lunatic asylum.” Or, from someone posing as an authority who is doing a hatchet job.
There are editors in Wikipedia that relish this lack of control and form little "gangs" to impose their smears and misrepresentations on articles by outnumbering other editors--including those with expert training and legitimate points of view.
I have been "slashed and burned" by such a gang, and I know whereof I speak. Wikipedia has let them go ahead with their dirty business, their foul language, their false and hurtful assaults on my profession and personal reputation. Real libel--actual malice in legal terms--has been passed off as "editing" by the Wikipedia administrators who are supposed to "ride shotgun" to keep the encyclopedia safe from "bandits" -- or vandals as they are called.
Wikipedia itself has an article "What's Wrong with Wikipedia?" that says: "Editors have learned that formation into 'gangs' is the most effective way of imposing their view on opposite-minded contributors."
I am a great advocate of open source. Open source is needed to spread technology and prevent software monopolies. But "open source knowledge" has not come of age. If ten people without medical knowledge try to do bypass surgery on a patient, or even 500 try it, I pity the patient. If 500 people ignorant of French Literature write a Wikipedia article on it, I pity the article. Or if a "gang" of 5 people motivated by contempt and ill-will "rewrite" an honest article, the result can be a libelous horror. I have seen such a piece of work in process and am trying to fight it right now. If this is done to an infrequently-visited article, continues "What's Wrong with Wikipedia," the misinformation will remain--or if someone tries to restore its integrity, the "gang" will continually reset the article to their own version.
God help the truth! And now, the cavalry, led by John Seigenthaler, Sr., is charging to the rescue.
Permalink to Comment