Posted by
Andrews on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:55:59 PM
I was reading through some of the discussion pages on Wikipedia today and can say it was informative. I have written before on the many problems
with the theory of Wikipedia as well as the
problems in implementation, including the
excessive power granted to some editors. But it wasn't until today that I realized what precisely is wrong with Wikipedia.
For an example,
look at this discussion page, specifically the penultimate section. For those who don't want to read through it,t he discussion centers around whether or not the article can be edited, as it has been declared a "Featured Article". The main argument for the changes is that various standards are not met. The counter argument is that if changes are made it may lose its featured article status.
After reading through this debate, as well as several on the use of copyrighted images, the thing that struck me is that wikipedia most resembles little children playing at being editors. And just as children playing doctors will never cure a disease, adults playing at encyclopedia will never produce a scholarly work.
The problem with wikipedia (or one problem, as there are many) is that the knowledge is in the wrong place. It is a common problem in "egalitarian" projects. The contributors are the most knowledgeable, while the editors and upper command are all generalists. And you can see the harm in any dispute.
Wikipedia struggles tend to have two possible resolutions. First, a "majority rule" resolution, where the majority opinion carries the day. As the majority can be wrong a soften as right, and as experts are almost always a minority, this tends to leave experts with less say. The alternative is to appeal to editors, but, as I stated, editors tend to be generalists, not experts in the specific topic, so they too can be wrong as often as right.
And so, unlike a real encyclopedia, where expertise tends to reside at the top*, and strongly worded imposed standards keep everyone in line, wikipedia has experts at the bottom with weakly worded rules enforced through group action, and interpreted by consensus. It is a recipe for disaster.
And we can see the results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Admittedly, at the highest levels encyclopedia editors are still generalists, but they hire specialists under them for each section. Wikipedia "editors" could be expert in any field, yet they are allowed to use editorial powers outside of their field, and vote on editorial decisions well outside of their narrow specialty. The egalitarian tendency of wikipedia, like "theory Y" management in business, creates nothing but disaster. When will people learn that hierarchical management existed for millenia for a reason? It is not an accident.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM
For completists, I wrote two other articles tangentially related to wikipedia not linked in the essay above.
Stop Confusing Me With The Facts! deals with an edit war over the involvement (or lack thereof) of the UFC in Guatemalan politics, and the way one editor refuses to be swayed by the facts.
Mystery Quotes deals with many sources of quotes whose primary source cannot be found, but makes mention of some of the problems arising from the many sites which simply duplicate wikipedia, mistakes and all, leading to the perpetuation of errors, even after wikipedia has been corrected. (Assuming it is ever corrected.)