Caveat editor
2009-08-28 10:42
On the 25th of August 2009, an extraordinary era came to an end. The Wikimedia Foundation, the custodians of Wikipedia, announced that they will introduce restrictions to editing the world's most popular online encyclopaedia.
While this may not sound particularly revolutionary, it's the first time that the foundation has ever placed any kind of blanket restrictions on editing Wikipedia's content.
In 2001 Jimmy Wales bet that an "open-access" model, where anyone was allowed to edit anything, was the key to realising his dream of a collaborative repository for all human knowledge.
What sounded laughably idealistic has become a cultural phenomenon with millions of articles in hundreds of languages, and users numbering in the hundreds of millions. Wikipedia has even been favourably compared to traditional encyclopaedias such as Britannica.
One of the critical things that made Wikipedia possible is the principle of a "wiki" - the tool that powers collaborative content creation and editing. Not only does a wiki let anyone quickly add or edit info, it also lets anyone reverse inappropriate changes (including everything from false information to spam or vandalism) with a single click.
But an even more critical component in Wikipedia's success is the few hundred thousand hard core Wikipedians - mostly idealists like Mr Wales - who devote several hours of each week to monitoring, grooming, pruning and expanding articles. Roughly 90% of the content on the site comes from 10% of its users.
And this brings us to the third and perhaps least obvious reason for Wikipedia's success - most of its hundreds of millions users have never realised (or cared) that they can edit any page. Ok kids, resist the urge to run off and put the word "drol" into the article on George W Bush.
Wikipedia has essentially become a victim of its own success. As more and more users become comfortable with the site, more and more misuse crops up. As with any public edifice, it has attracted vandals, vagrants and crazies.
What finally tipped the balance was the growing trend of adding untrue and often libellous information to the Wikipedia pages of living people.
For instance John Seigenthaler, a respected journalist, was falsely implicated in both Kennedy assassinations. These kinds of malicious edits put the foundation at risk of being sued for defamation, and finally drove them to change their policy.
But, in typical Wikimedia style, the restrictions are sensible and relatively light. New editors (anyone with three days or less of experience) will still be able to edit content, but it will have to be approved by a more experienced editor before it actually appears on the site.
No doubt some die hard Wikipedians are horrified by even these loose restrictions, but I think it's just part of a natural and necessary maturing process. What started out as a crazy, collaborative experiment in knowledge sharing has become a household name and a thing of great public value.
In this respect Wikipedia is like a public park created from scrubland by the hard work of citizens. At first only the most avid landscapers pitched in, but soon the whole community was planting flowers and picking up litter.
Now that flower beds are in bloom, the hooligans and the pimps are moving in. Frankly I don't think we should feel guilty about excluding them.
- Alistair is Social Media Manager at 20FourLabs.
Send your comments to Alistair
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
- News24