Wikipedia [1] is built on an open-source software called a “wiki [2].” The wiki allows users to post entries as well as modify content posted by other users. If our Web site was a wiki, you could edit this entry in whatever way you wanted.
Wikipedia was built on the idea of offering a free body of knowledge to all Internet users – its goal [3] is “ to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia—actually, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth.”
HOW IT WORKS: Users create articles on topics from physics to video games (there are more than 850,000 English-language articles) and other users monitor and edit them, trying to keep neutral and truthful. “ Those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating an impartial encyclopedia, should find a welcoming environment,” the official policy says [4].
There are many articles on Wikipedia (including 37 labeled “official policy” [5]) that amount to a substantial body of self-definition. Among them:
These documents address issues such as editing, writing and naming conventions or behavior guidelines.
ISSUES: Wikipedia’s reliability has been questioned from the start. Critics wondered how an encyclopedia edited by thousands of anonymous volunteers (mostly everyone registered on Wikipedia uses a “screen name”) could offer credible information? The site dedicates an entire entry to “replies to common objections [9]” including trustworthiness, expertise, bias and attribution.
To some degree, Wikipedia tries to function as a city with a “benevolent dictator” as founder Jimmy Wales described his role in a C-SPAN interview [10]. Wales has only one paid employee and he allows and trusts this community to police itself.
Wikipedia has rules against abusive editing of articles. Users who post false information, or those who vandalize and spam articles are generally reprimanded. More dramatic episodes are debated in committees comprised of veteran volunteers, such as the Mediation Committee or the Arbitration Committee that establish precedents and hands out verdicts that include temporary restrictions on editing, account blocking and a permanent ban from Wikipedia [11].
These debates and controversies, as well as the edits are all there to see, a degree of transparency that Wikipedia supporters embrace. Here are recent arbitration decisions [12].
HOW IT FAILED: What the Seigenthaler episode shows is that Wikipedia has flaws. While thousands might be monitoring the veracity of edits made to entries such as “George Bush” or “abortion,” almost nobody paid attention to the accuracy of the statements made about a retired journalist.
Wikipedia policy states that “all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia [13] is not defamatory [14].” All Wikipedia will do when such episodes happen is delete the libellous revision from the page history – which has happened in Seigenthaler’s case.
A disclaimer at the top of the Wikipedia article about itself attempts to warn users about this potential hazard: “Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some important ways. In particular, mature articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while other (often fledgling) articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopaedic content or vandalism.”
THE AFTERMATH: A week after Seigenthaler’s editorial, Wikipedia founder Wales instituted a policy that requires users to register in order to create an entry; contributors who edit will still be able to do so without registering. A Dec. 5, 2005 Associated Press [15] story [15] quoted Wales as saying that the move will not prevent people from posting false information, but it will make it easier for other contributors to track changes and remove errors.
In the days after Seigenthaler’s editorial, a series of revisions were made to his current Wikipedia biography, some of which were personal insults and attacks such as “he killed Kennedy and you know it,” or “Seigenthaler is especially notable for his amazing ignorance of the Internet.” His current bio was protected several times from editing because of repeated vandalism.
Users and editors of Wikipedia did not ignore the issues raised by Seigenthaler, nor did they dismiss him. There is a Wikipedia article dedicated to the “John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, [16]” which chronicles the whole saga. A talk page associated with the “John Siegenthaler Sr.” entry [17] discusses many facets of the issue, from the accountability of Wikipedia, to solutions, to complaints that the Wikipedia spirit has been misrepresented in the mainstream media. There are just as many critics of Seigenthaler as there are supporters.
“There seems to be an attitude prevailing here that Wikipedia is immune to criticism because anyone can edit it,” a user called Rogue writes. “But you see, this is the source of criticism.” A user identifiable only by an IP address counters by saying that Seigenthaler and other journalists should have researched Wikipedia more extensively before attacking it.
Others say they strive for accuracy and point out that they recently corrected what Seigenthaler referred to as “harmless” mistakes in a new version of his biography available online – these include being credited with a book actually written by his son, John M. Seigenthaler. There is another topic of discussion on how to correctly pronounce Seigenthaler’s name.
One item discusses Seigenthaler’s reaction to learning about Brian Chase, the man who came forth in December to say he was the one who posted the original biography “as a prank,” not realizing that people took Wikipedia seriously. “I think it was really classy the way Seigenthaler handled things after the guy apologized,” a user named Foofy writes about the journalist’s decision not to sue for libel. “The [NY Times] article says they talked for a while and he urged the guy’s boss to hire him again. So while I think the whole Wikipedia dissing was not nice, I think he’s a pretty cool dude. Different generation, but still cool.”