Washington Post Wikipedia analysis
As opposed to the [[Ken Lay]] article “controversy” that Reuters initiated, Washington Post’s Frank Ahrens has a thoughtful piece on Wikipedia that is informed and often uncomfortable for Wikipedians to read. Ahrens gets how Wikipedia works, how it can be useful, and states the major conundrum.
But here’s the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you’re getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it’s fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information…
I’m a fan of Wikipedia and Wiki notions, such as “citizen journalism.” I just want them to be better.
Even the hardcore Wikipedians know this, and have been debating how to address it in the long term.
You will immediately have problems approaching Wikipedia with the same expectations as a uniformly and systematically edited publication, such as a traditional encyclopedia, a newspaper or a published book. It’s simply not built the same way. Parts of it are spectacular (computer science, science fiction, pop culture, geography) and lots of it often poor (medical, literature, arts). The content reflects the quality and scope of its participants. You can increase the quality of the participants (hard, because it’s a self-selecting bunch) or increase the scope, which is done by raising flags on problematic articles, and systematically editing articles for quality, accuracy and depth. This is often done with WikiProjects.
For example, on priority effort is to raise the average quality of subjects that are “commodity” in other encyclopedias. Jimmy Wales has dubbed this “Britannica-or-better” quality. That is, it’s pretty objectionable if the article on [[World War II]] is flawed or inaccurate since so much information is available. But if the more obscure [[Unit 731]] has problems, that’s more forgivable.
I feel it becomes a media literacy issue, and managing expectations when you arrive at the doorstep. But that’s the problem - some people arrive at the front door, some jump directly into an article that is hyperlinked from another site. And experiences will vary widely depending on the method of arrival.
Hopefully, some of these issues will be addressed at Wikimania 2006 in Boston next month, where Wikipedians will meet face-to-face.
