Weather
Gas Prices
Flight Info
Lottery
Recipes
Soccer
Stock Market
Horoscopes
Print friendly
Wikipedia, editable encyclopedia
Wisdom of the Crowds vs. Tyranny of the Masses
By Joshua S. Hill
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
I've waxed eloquent before about the virtues of Wikipedia, and how it is quickly becoming the pinnacle of our current internet and technological endeavors. However, not everyone shares my obsession-like love of the editable encyclopedia. There are those who, possibly with valid evidence, believe that the editable factor that I believe makes Wikipedia so beneficial, is doing more damage than good.
"By engaging expert editors, eliminating anonymous contribution and launching a more mature community under a new charter, a much broader and more influential group of people and institutions will be able to improve upon Wikipedia's extremely useful, but often uneven work. The result will be not only enormous and free, but reliable."
These are the words of Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger who is behind a new project entitled Citizendium. Sanger left Wikipedia at the end of 2004, and later released an op-ed at Kuro5hin detailing why he had left. His issues centered around three main issues; lack of public perception of credibility, particularly in areas of detail, the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers, and anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise.
The latter is what he believes to be the root problem; that those who are experts within their field are not given the last say in the matter, or any respect. He describes the whole system, as well as Jimmy Wales, the man now running Wikipedia, as anti-elitist in that "Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise."
Sanger's answer to this problem is `Citizendium'.
Citizendium will work on the basic Wikipedia principal, in so far that it will solicit input from the public -- though forcing people to use their real names rather than screen names -- but all information will be directed by expert editors, labeled constables. These 'constables', like Gareth Leng, Professor of Experimental Physiology of the University of Edinburgh, will all be experts in their field and have the ability to properly edit information posted.
"Public understanding of science needs scientists to help to explain, clearly and objectively, what science can do and what it can't," said Laeng. "At the Citizendium, our role will not be to tell readers what opinions they should hold, but to give them the means to decide for themselves."
Now, without a doubt, Wikipedia has provided much entertainment, with the almost religiously zealous editors acting as if the fate of the world rested on their shoulders alone. Information has been skewed, both purposefully and accidentally, and it has provided a negative stereotype amongst professionals such as academics, teachers and librarians.
Citizendium hopes to unravel that stereotype, by providing people with a Wikipedia like encyclopedic knowledge base that has the respect of those academics, and a place within the classroom.
The battle for online encyclopedic knowledge is not going to be won over night, and a time in the future when Wikipedia and Citizendium compete for dominance is one I look forward to. However one cannot deny that, just because you do not hold a PhD in Physics or are a religious leader, does not discount you from having the same facts. The issue at hand is rather not that Wikipedia has incorrect information, but more that the information is tainted by the possibility that it is incorrect.
In a related note, September 9th saw Wikipedia hit two million English written articles. Though the exact article that broke the record is yet to be determined, it is expected that the Wikimedia foundation will make an announcement within days, possibly after checking the official servers' logs.
Joshua can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
