Posted on Sun, Dec. 31, 2006

email this

print this

reprint or license this

COMMENTARY

Wikipedia is hardly authoritative on any subject

By DEREK DONOVAN

Reader's Representative

• More Reader's Representative columns

One of the most important tasks of a readers’ representative is to make sure the newspaper gets its facts straight. I’m gratified that readers never seem shy about pointing out errors in the The Kansas City Star.

I always try to verify information from independent, disinterested resources, as any journalist should. That’s why I’ve been chagrined lately to see more and more readers citing Wikipedia as proof of their assertions.

Wikipedia, which calls itself “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” is a Web site containing more than 1.5 million articles on a vast array of subjects, including current events. Created in 2001, it has rapidly become one of the key informational sources on the Internet, with heavy hitters like Google Earth referring to its content.

The concept seems interesting at first: Call upon everyone with Internet access to contribute, in the hopes of creating a constantly evolving, peer-reviewed body of knowledge that anyone can use for free.

In reality it’s an abject failure. I find it depressing that so many people, including many scientists, consider it authoritative.

Since anyone can instantly edit an article anonymously at any moment, there is an unceasing flow of vandalism to entries, especially on controversial topics. Plagiarism is widespread and difficult to identify.

Obviously, users can edit information pertaining to themselves. Early podcaster Adam Curry was famously caught altering an entry to omit references to his competitors — the very model of a conflict of interest.

People often engage in “edit wars,” in which opposing authors change details back and forth until one side wins through sheer tenacity. Entries are written by ardent fans and zealous foes, and dispassionate voices are rare.

The biggest problem with Wikipedia, though, is its utter lack of intellectual proportion. As of this writing, the entry on the purely fictional discipline of “lightsaber combat” from the Star Wars movies runs more than 14,000 words, while the real-life sport of fencing gets just over 9,000. Franz Schubert’s entry is 3,200 words vs. Britney Spears’ 5,200. You simply can’t parody something so ridiculous.

All you Wikipedians, please spare me the angry e-mail. Feel free to use the site all you want (though I certainly have sympathy for teachers who have to vet today’s Wikified term papers).

Just remember that being able to change a “fact” yourself doesn’t make it true. Wikipedia has no more credibility than any other anonymous source when it comes to ferreting out errors. It’s popular because it’s free, not because it’s good.