The row over
On the Menezes page, for example, this text was added to the entry: "There has been some public backlash against Menezes, with British tabloid newspaper in particular protesting that he has received more publicity than any of the 52 people who died in the bombings. 'Anti-war' groups who champion Menezes case, ignore the fate of the victims of the bombings, other then to 'understand' why the attacks occurred due to the
Members of Menezes's family are understandably outraged by this kind of tampering and the ensuing hoo-ha has apparently stirred the government into devising a code of conduct for public officials in dealing with Wikipedia entries. That's good news, because this isn't the first time that official malpractice has been detected. Last April, for example, the
These mini-scandals are manna from Heaven for those in the media and elsewhere who find the Wikipedia concept alarming or disruptive. The idea that any Tom, Dick or Harriet could edit an encyclopaedia entry, and that the resulting whole would turn into an invaluable global resource, still seems incredible to some people. And the problem with these periodic media storms about discovered abuses is that they obscure an important truth about Wikipedia, namely that the way it operates has significant lessons for us all.
How come? Basically because Wikipedia embodies a new approach to the creation, dissemination and curation of knowledge in a networked world. The most striking thing about this approach is that it is completely open: the reason
Wikipedia is a typical product of the open internet, in that it started with a few simple principles and evolved a fascinating governance structure to deal with problems as they arose. It recognised early on that there would be legitimate disagreements about some subjects and that eventually corporations and other powerful entities would try to subvert or corrupt it.
As these challenges arose, Wikipedia's editors and volunteers developed procedures, norms and rules for addressing them. These included software for detecting and remedying vandalism, for example, and processes such as the "three-revert" rule. This says that an editor should not undo someone else's edits to a page more than three times in one day, after which disagreements are put to formal or informal mediation or a warning is placed on the page alerting readers that there is controversy about the topic. Some perennially disputed pages, for example the one on George W Bush, are locked down. And so on.
In trying to figure out how to run itself, Wikipedia has therefore been grappling with the problems that will increasingly bug us in the future. In a comprehensively networked world, opinions and information will be super-abundant, the authority of older, print-based quality control and verification systems will be eroded and information resources will be intrinsically malleable. In such a cacophonous world, how will we know what is reliable and true? How will we deal with disagreements and disputes about knowledge? How will we sort out digital wheat from digital chaff? Wikipedia may be imperfect (what isn't?) but at the moment it's the only model we have for addressing these problems.
TRIBUTE The shrine to
Most Popular Stories
- Alabama House Speaker Arrested on Felony Ethics Charges
- Microsoft's Cloud Platform Shines
- 'Fury' Blows 'Gone Girl' Out of the Box Office
- Turkey to Help Kurds Reach Fight in Kobani
- ISIS Seeks to Expand Terror War
- German Intelligence Blames Ukraine Rebels for MH17
- Perez Leads Push for Obama's Job Proposals
- 2016 Camaro Shrinks, Moves to Caddy Platform
- Prius Drivers Battle Stereotypes
- New Effort to Ban Child Labor From Tobacco Farms