The Six Sins of the Wikipedia

It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes. It poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less savory flotsam and jetsam
 of cyber-life. People who are regularly excluded or at least moderated in every other Internet community are welcomed, no questions asked, by this wannabe self-styled "encyclopedia"

Six cardinal (and, in the long-term, deadly) sins plague this online venture. What unites and underlies all its deficiencies is simple: Wikipedia dissembles about what it is and how it operates. It is a self-righteous confabulation and its success in deceiving the many attests not only to the gullibility of the vast majority of Netizens but to the PR savvy of its sleek and slick operators.

1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness

The overwhelming majority of contributors to and editors of the Wikipedia remain anonymous throughout the process. Anyone can register and members' screen-names (handles) mean nothing and lead nowhere. Thus, no one is forced to take responsibility for what he or she adds to the "encyclopedia" or subtracts from it.

This amounts to an impenetrable smokescreen: identities can rarely be established and evading the legal consequences of one's actions or omissions is easy. As the exposure of the confabulated professional biography of Wikipedia Arbitrator Essjay in March 2007 demonstrates, some prominent editors and senior administrators probably claim fake credentials as well.

Everything in the Wikipedia can be and frequently is edited, re-written and erased and this includes the talk pages and even, to my utter amazement, in some cases, the history pages! In other words, one cannot gain an impartial view of the editorial process by sifting through the talk and history pages of articles (most of which are typically monopolized by fiercely territorial "editors"). History, not unlike in certain authoritarian regimes, is being constantly re-jigged on the Wikipedia!

 
Comments 1 - 2 of 2  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Someone said "the average Internet user has the attention span of a gnat" and I am proof of that. With AC's showing me blank, white pages or IE messages "This page can not be displayed", when I see 7 page AC articles, past frustrations and slow page loads, prevent me from reading more. I did want to read this whole article. I have found exactly one error on Wikipedia, that was corrected by another user. Basically, when I find info I need, I then verify it with other sources. The site works because it is "of, for and by the people" and the people "police" it themselves.

Posted on 09/30/2007 at 9:09:00 AM

...and then there are those ex-editors who make a vocation out of projectively criticising Wikipedia, after their self-promotional pseudoscience is replaced by valid, academically soucred material and they are banned for repeatedly creating sock puppets to try and create a concensus for their self promotion. Some of them even do this while still copying and pasting huge chunks of Wikipedia into their novels in lieu of research.

Posted on 06/19/2007 at 2:06:00 PM

Comments 1 - 2 of 2