In this week’s column at The Independent, I’ve written about the wonder that is Wikipedia.
However the piece got shortened because of this “space” thing again, so here’s the full version. It’s ©The Independent, so don’t nick it.
What’s the top result on Google? I mean the search of searches, the ultimate search, the site that the most links point to from elsewhere on the web. If you try it (put two asterisks separated by a space in the search box), the top result points to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia. (Other search engines like MSN, Yahoo and Ask don’t use the same system, so that won’t work.)
What is so special about Wikipedia? The first is that anyone can start a new entry on any topic that they like; you could start a Wikipedia entry about yourself if you would like.
But before you rush off in a blaze of vainglory (to discover that Wikipedia discourages autobiographies), here’s the other thing that makes Wikipedia powerful, at least online: anyone can contribute to it, so experts can chip in with their tuppence (or perhaps two pounds’ worth) if they want to. You know more than what’s there? You think it’s wrong? Click the link on the page saying “Edit this” and change it. And it can all be done anonymously. (The software that powers this system is called a “wiki” - from the Hawaiiian for “quick” or “fast” – hence the name.)
Sure, someone may come along and decide you were the one who was wrong; but you might have added to the sum of online human knowledge. And that’s a good thing, surely.
And Wikipedia has just three essential tenets: its contributors carry out no original research (instead, they link to web or external sources); articles should be verifiable (that is, using trusted data); and written from a “neutral point of view”. Break any of those rules, and you’re going to see your article edited.
Despite sounding like a recipe for absolute chaos, Wikipedia has weathered the storms of criticism and come through with its reputation shining. (A 2002 study by IBM found that “vandalism” of pages is removed, by reinstating the previous version, within five minutes.) It is not perfect, and not “complete” (though no encyclopaedia ever can be). But from the beginnings in only January 2001 it has grown to encompass more than 750,000 articles, and can be a challenging alternative to news sites: soon after the latest Bali bombings, a Wikipedia page was created to record the facts (and only the facts) about it; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings for the example. A similar one was set up after the London bombings of July 7th which provided a useful, factual reference, that was – most importantly – updated as more data came in.
That’s all well and good, but as that search factoid reveals, Wikipedia has begun to become much more important than just being a place where people organise facts. On pretty much any fact-based topic you’ll find a link to a Wikipedia page. Often the content of that page will have been built partly with the results from the Google search that pointed to it – leading to the suggestion that “Wikipedia will eat Google”.
That might sound unlikely, but there’s another thing about the Wikipedia that does mark it out from Google. Neither of them is authoritative, and neither covers everything that they want to. But Wikipedia, so far, is free from spam – despite being open to change by, apparently, anyone.
Google by contrast is overrun with spam, at least in certain areas. Looking for a MP3 player, cheap? You can ask Google, but you’ll get overrun with results that might or might not be useful, pointing to sites that may be guying its results to attract hopeful buyers. (Other search engines do just as badly; and some take money from the sites trying to attract you even if their offerings aren’t the best match for what you want.)
How does Wikipedia keep the spam merchants out? I truly don’t know (and I think they’d like to keep it secret). Known troublemakers can be banned, though there are often long agonised discussions about what constitutes a “troublemaker” and whether banning is the best manner of putting things right. But a couple of clear trends are emerging.
Overall, Wikipedia is becoming the online resource to resolve disputes; if another site is more authoritative on a topic, then Wikipedia links to that (thus making its “verifiability” and “no original research” tenets into assets, rather than liabilities). Gradually though one can see the temptation for a cadre of full-time staff to begin searching for ways to improve the content, seeking slightly better information, noticing articles that haven’t been updated or checked for a long time. As Wikipedia is always on a fundraising drive (it’s a not-for-profit organisation), and only has a budget of less than million dollars annually while employing three staff, the idea of its paying people to work on the content, when thousands will do it for free, might seem fanciful.
But then again people thought once that nobody would pay for an operating system if you gave it away. Linux, the open-source product, proved that wrong: there are thousands of companies paying for support around the world. Wikipedia may not be perfect, but it’s better than nothing. And you’re welcome to contribute.
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}