Wikipedia Warfare: Anarchy Rules, Truth Optional
Analyze Wikipedia? Why bother. Jimmy Wales poudly underscores the 2 billion “encyclopedia” entries in English are the product of a “no rules,” truth is optional operating philosophy.
Virgil Griffith’s WikiScanner aims to bring sunlight to ”anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations,” plus “become the number one hit on Google for ‘virgil’ AND: “to create minor public relations disasters for companires and organizations I dislike.”
At least Virgil is open about his personal agenda! Are Wikipedians?
The morass of mis, dis and non-information that is the Wikipedia “enclyclopedia that anyone can edit” is a given, given that:
Wikipedia does not have firm rules,
Perfection is not required,
Articles can be changed by anyone,
No original research,
Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth,
Articles may contain unencyclopedic content, vandalism, false, debatable information…
Wikipedia even disclaims itself!:
Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information. Wikipedia’s radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite. Many contributors do not yet comply fully with key policies, or may add information without citable sources.
many articles start their lives as partisan, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate and argument, that they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may for a while become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time — months perhaps — to extricate themselves and regain a better balanced consensus. In part, this is because Wikipedia operates an internal resolution process when editors cannot agree on content and approach, and such issues take time to come to the attention of more experienced editors.
The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have. However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn. Some articles contain statements and claims which have not yet been fully cited. Others will later have entire new sections added. Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded, and may be removed or expounded.
Can a Wiki Scanner turn Wikipedia around? NO!
ALSO: Does USC Annenberg OJR Want Old Media Journalists to Shut Up? and HP Cloudprint vs. Google Gmail Paper: Web to Print Heats Up