Secrets and Paranoia at Wikipedia
You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.–Jimbo Wales
What was the crime that this Wikipedia editor was guilty of? The story reads more like a high-school cat-fight more than the inner workings of the worlds biggest online encyclopedia.
Giano II it seems had provided the damning evidence in the form of a reproduced email that showed
- Wikipedia is not as open and free as users are led to believe.
- Jimbo Wales is apparently on the side of the paranoid ruling elite rather than Joe User.
Doesn’t sound like the Wiki we all know and love, does it? Well, ok, a growing number of people don’t love it at all, and in fact hold it under a great deal of suspicion, but that is getting ahead of ourselves.
Wikipedia is supposedly a site based on the ideals of cooperation, freedom of speech and friendly collaborative knowledge-building. Great and laudable ideas. The site has been hugely successful. In fact the site is referenced so much that many searches in Google provide Wikipedia as the first result.
Anyone is supposedly allowed to edit the content. The whole idea of a Wiki is that you or I can see something that needs correcting and just do it. No waiting for helplines and support tickets. Which is good because people believe in what is written so much there is a great responsibility on the part of the editors to get their facts right. Wikipedia stories could make or break a reputation.
That’s the idea, but in fact more people are coming out with stories that suggest Joe User has very little ability to do more than minor tweaks and in fact a cabal of powerful users control the site, paranoid and drunk on their own influence.
The quote above was Jimbo Wales attacking a previously respected user for revealing an email proving the existence of a secret mailing list that was being used to wield power in private. So much for “open”, eh?
Basically, Durova’s email showed that Bang Bang was indeed a wonderfully productive editor. She was sure this was all a put-on, that he was trying to gain the community’s “good faith” and destroy it from within. We’re not joking. This sort of extreme paranoia has become the norm among the Wikipedia inner circle.
Just to repeat, it seems Durova believed being a good editor was evidence of evil intent. Yeah, I had to read it twice too.
Where does that leave you and I? Can we trust Wikipedia? In many cases Wikipedia is the best source of information so what choice do we have?
- Check facts - Wikipedia content is very often gleaned from multiple sources or just plain made up, and by the nature of the type of site is rarely professionally compiled, so you should always check facts anyway
- Simply human - This argument is no doubt the first and will not be the last. When people get into positions of power they often act like this and get paranoid to protect the power once they attain it. Any other site would have the same issues.
- We provide the authority - Most webmasters never consider the fact that it is the users and other site owners who make Wikipedia what it is. If we didn’t contribute, patronize and link Wikipedia so much then it wouldn’t hold the power it does.
- Isolated or institutionalized? - The issue comes down to if this is an isolated case. You can be sure there are a lot of people watching the site for abuse. Once a site is so visible the web community becomes their checks and balances.
Do you trust Wikipedia? Please share your thoughts in the comments …
Related posts:
- Google Paranoia and the Tin Foil Hat Club
- Questions About Google Knol
- What is spreadsheet collaboration?
- A Better Blog Contact Form
- Social Software in the Enterprise
Posted on December 4, 2007 by Chris Garrett
Filed Under Web 2.0
Comments
10 Responses to “Secrets and Paranoia at Wikipedia”
Leave a Reply
- The Excel Magician: 70+ Excel Tips and Shortcuts to help you make Excel Magic
- Conversion Central: 101 Tools to Convert Video, Music, Images, PDF and More
- Using Mind Maps for Creativity, Note-Taking and Productivity
- Announcing the Creative Commons PDF Converter
- The Freelancer's Toolset: 100 Web Apps for Everything You Will Possibly Need
- Adobe
- Blogging
- Cogniview
- Collaboration
- Content Licensing
- Copywriting
- Creative Commons
- Enterprise 2.0
- Excel
- Excel Template
- Excel Tips
- Funny
- IT
- Methodology
- Microsoft
- Office 2.0
- Productivity
- Sad
- Series
- Software Tools
- Uncategorized
- Video Tutorials
- Web 2.0
-
Keep this site going
Subscribe with RSS
A bad block was made (and reversed after 75 minutes) for reasons which didn’t hold up under close scrutiny (and should’ve been made available more quickly, without Giano’s intervention). The admin concerned ended up resigning, and though she was clearly acting in good faith, I’m frankly not in a hurry to see her reassume the role.
Whence the drama, then? Ach, the Sekrit Cabal raises its ugly head.
Seriously, this is a storm in a tea cup. There have always been ways for editors to communicate with each other without being open to the rest of the editing community, and some of these ways include are “official” lists. Big deal.
If others want to huff and puff about oppression, let them. I’ll be busy fixing the bloody typos.
Nicely put
I think any time things are said to be open but then happen behind “closed doors” people will shout “conspiracy!” but I find it surprising that Wikipedia is held to such unrealistically high standards. Wherever you get people you get politics, I am not sure why it is expected for Wikipedia to be an exception 
I’m no fan of Wikipedia (see here why), and I’m pretty sure that the accusation of Wikipedia editors being paranoid has some merit.
However, 2 things come to mind:
1) You’ve assumed the editors to be guilty as charged from the start, and then taken a stance against them when the evidence is, to be fair, inconclusive (unless Durova has a history of paranoid delusions, but that’s a different story).
2) You’ll find that Wikipedia has gained this respect because they’ve they themselves have set high standards for themselves.
Yes, I trust Wikipedia, the same way as I would trust a blog or the newspaper - which is with a heavy dose of skepticism. In cases where opinions become involved or where someone has a stake in the outcome, then you start to trust Wikipedia less. When it’s just pure information (background info on a TV series, or basic medical information), then you can trust it more, because while you know that the people running it are not infallible, they are certainly hard-working and thorough in their research.
forgot the link
I take your (well made) point but in cases such as medical information I would be even more skeptical as the risk of being misled could be more detrimental?
I agree with Ahmed. When the topic isn’t controversial, I usually trust wikipedia to give me a quick overview. Although, I *always* try to find another source or two to confirm what I’ve read.
Do you find you link to them a lot Aaron? A few times I have linked the wiki people have criticized me for not trying hard enough to find someone else to link to.
I don’t really adhere to the comspiracy theory even though I also believe that some people overreact to having a little power and behave like small tyrants. I don’t believe this to be the case since most of the content I have seen is excellent and well informed. A little normal caution in how we read the latter should be exerted, but that’s all. In general I find wikipedia extremely useful and I give thanks to all those contributing their time and brains to keeping it that way.
Sorry for a late comment. I check my feeds once a month.
Anyways, Wikipedia is a starting point not an ending point. It’s just to sort out thoughts.
Anyone who uses it as a primary source of information is either lazy or clueless.
Internal Discussion, WikiOnto…
Internal Discussion ad WikiOnto Various Links of Interest:…