Let me preface this by saying that I know Wikipedia is very cool. A lot of
people do not think so, but of course they are wrong. So the following must be
taken in the spirit of someone who knows and supports the mission and broad policy
outlines of Wikipedia very well.
First problem: lack of public perception of credibility, particularly in
areas of detail. The problem I would like to point out is not that
Wikipedia is unreliable. The alleged unreliability of Wikipedia is something that
the above (TechCentralStation and AP) articles make much of, but that is not my
point, and I am not interested in discussing that point per se.
My point is that, regardless of whether Wikipedia actually is more
or less reliable than the average encyclopedia, it is not perceived as
adequately reliable by many librarians, teachers, and academics. The reason for
this is not far to seek: those librarians etc. note that anybody can
contribute and that there are no traditional review processes. You might hasten to
reply that it does work nonetheless, and I would agree with you to a large extent,
but your assurances will not put this concern to rest.
You might maintain that people are already using Wikipedia a lot, and that that
implies a great deal of trust. This is true, as far as it goes; but people use
many sources that they themselves believe to be unreliable, via Google searches,
for example. (I do so all the time, though perhaps I shouldn't.) Perhaps
Wikipedia is better described as one of those sources regarded as unreliable which
people read anyway. And in this case, one might say, there's no problem:
Wikipedia is being read, and it is of minimally adequate and
increasing reliability. What more could you ask? In other words, why does a
perception of unreliability matter?
I am willing to grant much of this reply. I think merely that there are a great
many benefits that accrue from robust credibility to the public. One benefit, but
only one, is support and participation by academia. I am on the academic job
market now and I felt it was necessary to explain my views
about Wikipedia's credibility for potential employers. A great many of my
colleagues are not at all impressed with the project; but more about that in a bit.
Another benefit accruing from robust public credibility is even more widespread
use and support by teachers, schools, libraries, and the general public--precisely
the people who want to use what they believe to be a credible encyclopedia.
To the extent that the project is not reaching, and being supported by, these
people, it is not succeeding as well as it might.
Perhaps you might also maintain that, while Wikipedia does not now have a
reputation for reliability, it will eventually, once enough studies proving its
reliability are done, and once people are more familiar with the concept behind the
project. This is hard to argue with; but it is also hard to support, because it
involves predicting the future, and the future, when it comes to public opinion, is
extremely unpredictable. It would be better to do something to help
guarantee a reputation for reliability.
Wikipedia has another sort of credibility problem, mentioned in passing above,
and I fear that time is not a solution to this problem, the way it
might be to the foregoing one. Namely, one can make a good case that, when
it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most
of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven. If the project was
lucky enough to have a writer or two well-informed about some specialized subject,
and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people, whose
knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in
college classes, then there might be a good, credible article on that
specialized subject. Otherwise, there will be no article at all, a very
amateurish-sounding article, or an article that looks like it might once have been
pretty good, but which has been hacked to bits by hoi polloi. (Am I
sounding elitist enough for you yet? Just wait.) One has only to compare the
excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy to Wikipedia's Philosophy section. From the
point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Wikipedia needs a lot of work.
Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their
enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position
ran out. That does not mean that I am merely mercenary; I might have continued to
participate, were it not for a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in
There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one.
Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts
would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated
Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia
project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not
(necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that
something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other
listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the
troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated
Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and
other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration
Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of
Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.
But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone
arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on
it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to
work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which
is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant
fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This
explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely
knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project.
The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There
is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of
the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit
or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist
(which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is
anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded
any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is
one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first
year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting
and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember
that I tried very hard.)
I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered
and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential
members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free
encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the
Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid
editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on
articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their
edits on article
discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so
bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community
about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to
"work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).
This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the
project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since
invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of
Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is
run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional
deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously
by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia
and its reputation.
This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second
problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for
expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who
deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain.
To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little
patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even
for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others
constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively,
probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward
disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to
the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is,
there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some,
of course) than there could and should be.
It will probably be objected by some that, since I am not 100% committed to the
most radical sort of openness, I do not understand why the project that I founded
works: it works, I will be told, precisely because it is radically
I know, of course, that Wikipedia works because it is radically open. I
recognized that as soon as anyone; indeed, it was part of the original plan. But I
firmly disagree with the notion that that Wikipedia-fertilizing openness requires
disrespect toward expertise. The project can both prize and praise its most
knowledgeable contributors, and permit contribution by persons with no
credentials whatsoever. That, in fact, was my original conception of the project.
It is sad that the project did not go in that direction.
One thing that Wikipedia could do now, although I doubt that it is possible in
the current atmosphere and with the current management, is to adopt an
official policy of respect of and deference to expertise. Wikipedia's
"key policies" have not changed since I was associated with the project; but if
a policy of respect of and deference to expertise were adopted at that level, and
if it were enforced somehow, perhaps the project would solve the problems described
But don't hold your breath. Unless there is the equivalent of a revolution in
the ranks of Wikipedia, the project will not adopt this sort of policy and make it
a "key policy"; or if it does, the policy will probably be not be enforced. I
certainly do not expect Jimmy Wales to change his mind. I have known him since
1994 and he is a smart and thoughtful guy; I am sure he has thought through his
support of radical openness and his (what I call) anti-elitism. I doubt he will
change his mind about these things. And unless he does change his mind, the
project itself will probably not change.
Nevertheless, everyone familiar with Wikipedia can now see the power of the
basic Wikipedia idea and the crying need to get more experts on board and a
publicly credible review process in place (so that there is a subset of "approved"
articles--not a heavy-handed, complicated process, of course). The only way
Wikipedia can achieve these things is to jettison its anti-elitism and to moderate its openness to trolls and fools; but it will almost
certainly not do these things. Consequently, as Wikipedia increases in popularity
and strength, I do not see how there can not be a more academic fork of the
project in the future.
I hope that a university, academic consortium, or thinktank can be found to
pursue a project to release vetted versions of Wikipedia articles, and I hope that
the new project's managers will understand very well what has made Wikipedia work as well as it has, before they adopt any policies.