September 2, 2010
Download the PDF of our latest issue here.
Anonymity the fatal flaw of Wikipedia
“Jordan was interviewed on behalf of Wikipedia by New Yorker magazine in July 2006 in an article on the website. But in last month’s edition of the same publication, he was revealed not to be a professor with two PhDs, but rather a 24-year old college dropout from Kentucky.”
It’s brought together laymen and academics alike, and, in theory anyway, will eventually document everything and anything that can be documented. However, Wikipedia suffers the same problem that the rest of the Internet experiences, which is that there’s no way to verify its users’ identities. Since it’s “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” a user can choose to edit anonymously—only revealing their computer’s Internet address—or they can choose to register a pseudonym.
Such was the case of one Ryan “Essjay” Jordan, who registered an account on Wikipedia in 2005. Jordan claimed he had four degrees—including two doctorates—and a professorship at a private university. Over time, Jordan used these claimed credentials to win over arguments in the various discussion pages, eventually becoming an administrator and a member of Wikipedia’s arbitration board.
Jordan was interviewed on behalf of Wikipedia by the New Yorker magazine in July 2006 in an article on the website. But in last month’s edition of the same publication, he was revealed not to be a professor with two PhDs, but rather a 24-year old college dropout from Kentucky. This came to light in part due to his getting hired by Wikia—a for-profit Wikipedia spin-off—and his attempt at wiping the slate clean after editing his own profile on the website revealed his full identity.
Jordan said that he lied to protect himself in his role as administrator, and that he had afterward apologized to Wikipedia owner and co-founder Jimmy Wales. Wales initially accepted the apology and didn’t pursue any disciplinary action, but due to heavy pressure from various editors, “Essjay” was eventually removed.
What makes this case so damning to Wikipedia’s reputation isn’t the fact that Jordan climbed up the ranks of the site’s editing hierarchy, but the fact that he used his falsified degrees to further his credibility. Because of his bogus credentials, he was a dream candidate to further push the legitimacy of the encyclopedia—but with the revelation of his true identity, all he’s done is make the collaboration less credible.
This isn’t to say that what’s written on Wikipedia by any anonymous user is without foundation. The website’s policy dictates that everything must be sourced, but it’s harder to tell if the writers themselves had the credentials to back up their claims.
Nobody needs to have a degree to write an article on something as complex as Hylopetes—a type of squirrel—or as something as common as toothpaste, as provided either is properly sourced, it will be deemed factual.
However, if one is going to claim that they have certain credentials and if the website is going to advance someone based on that, the credentials themselves should certainly be backed up.
On the horizon is a new online encyclopedia called “Citizendium.” While the website makes claims of its larger competitor not being neutral on issues such as government and religion, it does require that any individual registering provides their real name and verification of their credentials. With this, Wikipedia may want to take a page from this expert-written spinoff (started by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger) to further prevent such an issue from occurring again.
-->
//
/* //
Comments
Wikia is not a "for-profit Wikipedia spin-off" but a company that Jimmy Wales runs.
Jimmy Wales, as most of us out there, including other personalities involved in charities, has to make money somehow.
If people involved in charities could not use their know-how in private, separate endeavours in order to earn their living, this would in effect limit charities to the happy few that can live without working.
The Essjay thing was interesting in that it showed how strongly valued trust is by the community. Essjay came by all his community roles through dint of honest hard work, but that he had lied about credentials, and worse yet used said claimed credentials in content arguments, led to incredible community outrage. I don't think any good-faith contributor will dare lie about credentials ever again. If people don't want personal info out there, it's easy enough not to say anything.
In my own opinion, credentialism would be difficult to put into place on the English Wikipedia. Unlike Britannica articles, which are signed (and you can look up the initials at the end and see who actually wrote the article), a Wikipedia article is just presented as the text. You can go through the history tab (and we encourage people to), but people tend not to do that. So you just have the text - is it well written? Does it have references? Do the references appear to check out?
This is why we've become much bigger on references and source quality in the last couple of years. Experts are generally respected, but you don't need to be an expert to find or check a source. Many of our featured articles (the best of Wikipedia) are written by people who aren't credentialed experts.
Beesley has used the WikiEN-l mailing list to suggest and promote Wikia as a "better alternative" for certain activities that she herself deprecates on Wikipedia. How convenient, huh? Say, "you can't do that on Wikipedia", and in the same breath say, "but you CAN do it over here on this deliciously wonderful paid site that is not a for-profit spin-off of Wikipedia, called Wikia."
There are nearly 5,000 outbound hyperlinks from Wikipedia to Wikia, and many of them are "follow", which boosts their relevance on Google.
Believe me, if outside investors have laid out $4 million to see to it that Wikia succeeds, there is going to be an overwhelming incentive to exploit Wikipedia wherever possible.
Michael Davis is the COO of Wikia and he simultaneously serves on the Wikimedia Board.
I don't buy it, that these two entities "operate entirely separately", as David Gerard (a very senior participant within Wikipedia) would try to have us believe.
Write a comment -->