Posted by
Andrews on Monday, May 05, 2008 9:57:56 PM
Ever research a topic on wikipedia, a topic with which you are fairly familiar, and discover that there is a fairly evident bias in the article? And not just a bias, but a bias which does not even represent the majority opinion? Or perhaps that certain issues which are known to be controversial are treated as settled, or not even raised at all?
Well, the wikipedia true believers will tell you that it represents some sort of consensus. After all their model is absed on a meeting of equal minds, all coming together to produce a definitive article.
Well,
except it isn't true.
It appears, as in Orwell's
Animal Farm, or its model in the Soviet Union, some wikipedia contributors are more equal than others. And those given such special powers will be able to not just force their opinions onto articles, but prevent others from changing them.
I have argued before that wikipedia's model is inherently defective, that those with a strong opinion and free time will dedicate a lot of time to making sure their opinions are expressed on a given page, while those who actually have some expertise will be unlikely to have the time or dedication needed to correct these opinions. But now, the existence of editors with superior privileges makes this even worse. As those who have dedicated so much time are more likely to become editors than those who actually have knowledge, they will also be granted the ability to prevent anyone from contradicting them.
In short, wikipedia is like any enthusiast's club, those with the most time to dedicate end up setting the rules. And just as you would not look to your local stamp collectors' club to design a new postal system, amateur enthusiasts are not the people I would turn to for truth. Say what you will about the old encyclopedias, but at least they were written by those selected as experts, not by those who were the most enthusiastic amateurs, or those whose strong opinions make them dedicate the greatest amount of time.
It is sad that wikipedia continues to be used as a reference. It is convenient, true, and I have used it to confirm simple facts, but for anything substantial it is very dangerous to rely on wikipedia.
Despite its popularity, it is time we admitted that the wikipedia model is fatally flawed. An amateur encyclopedia is about as successful as amateur brain surgery would be. And if you aren't willing to undergo one, please do not rely on the other.