Is Wikipedia a Failed Social Experiment?
I admire Wikipedia for trying to create a common knowledge database that everyone could access and participate in, but ultimately the site learned what politicians and sociologists realized long ago: when left to their own devices, people can't be trusted.
Wikipedia announced it's adding a layer of editorial control to its content (stronger than the current layer of volunteers scanning various pages on their own). Now changes to certain topic pages will need approval before they go live on the site. What do the changes say about Wikipedia's purpose, and its future? I always thought Wikipedia was community-created first, but it seems the site would rather be accurate. Wasn't that what encyclopedias used to be; created by a community of experts, but vetted for accuracy?
I wouldn't argue against Wikipedia's value, but it's authoritativeness has certainly been questioned time and again. Most schools don't allow students to cite the website, and many journalistic standards warn against trusting Wikipedia's article content. While that doesn't affect the millions of people checking the site for updates about their favorite celebrities and TV shows, its creators are probably seeking more credibility with this move toward editorial control.
Will this be the fate of other social media sites? Open content to the masses, realize the masses include some unsavory characters, and close the gates slowly to control what gets in? My guess is, probably. As social media becomes more mainstream, the industry will become more regulated and self-policing, leading us to reexamine exactly what "open" and "social creation" mean on the web.
Related Entries
- Starting Out in Social Media
- Forrester's Moira Dorsey: The Future of Online Customer Experience
- Guest Blogger Martin Hayward: Supporting Social Media Engagement on Your Website
Putting some editorial control does not mean that Wikipedia ceases to be a worldwide community source of information. Wikipedia is looking to improve its accuracy while still maintaining its user authorship. I see no conflict with having content created by users but having a check by Wikipedia staff for accuracy on certain subjects.
Now, this could quickly degenerate into censorship, but if managed correctly, could improve Wikipedia's standing in the world.
No.
I am really not surprised at this outcome. I admire their intentions but even academic journals vet and verify the papers that go into it, even though those papers were written by an "expert" on that subject. And, due to those "unsavory characters", in this case, spammers, I had to change the comment feature on the blog to moderated rather than publish upon submission.
In a perfect world, Wikipedia would have been a wonderful database full of useful knowledge. But as it grew, editing became less feasible by volunteer.
I think this type of project would work best with a finite group of people who are all passionate about making it accurate and accessible. Open to the entire world simply invites the problems that have been seen. There are always spoilers who think it is funny or makes them look smart to "outwit" those people at Wikipedia by publishing inaccurate or inappropriate content.
Yes, two heads are better than one, But only if both are honest and truly knowledgeable about a subject.