Last Updated (Wednesday, 22 October 2008 05:36) Written by PR Friday, 24 August 2007 07:09

The "Wiki-Reality" of Wikipedia.org

If you haven’t taken advantage of it, then you’ve at least heard about it already. It is Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that is the favorite resource of many students looking for quick information online. The term “wiki” began as a Hawaiian word meaning “fast” and it is meant to suggest just that: speedy information. But the prefix is used for more than just the Wikipedia website. Just type in “wiki” into wiktionary.com to see all the latest “wiki” websites. Wiki has evolved to mean more than its Hawaiian root; it now defines any collaborative website that can be directly edited by anyone who has access to it. Sounds great? Well, keep reading or you might just become a “wikiholic” (not a real word, but you will find it on wiktionary.com).

Nothing is Sacred

The collaborative content craze has also created wikocracy.com, where you can amend the U.S. constitution or change federal and state laws to suit your personal tastes. In fact, in any “wiki” website you will notice the ubiquitous [edit] link that allows you to add your own definitions and ideas no matter how distant from the truth they may be. This makes me want to coin my own word—“wiki-reality.” A user of wikocracy.com posted:

Some day, we will have a wiki for the Bible. Not a wiki about the Bible, but the Bible itself will be a wiki, constantly changing and evolving — Jim Gillian blog May 6th 2006

I can just see it now: “For God so loved the world [edit] that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life [edit] a mega millions powerball jackpot.” (The fact that his post was written at 2:04 a.m. suggests that Jim could be a wikiholic.)

Controversy and Slander

Now it is true that such edits would not get very far. Just as when “mass murder” was added to President George Bush’s biography on wikipedia, it was quickly reversed by the watchful eyes of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756

On May 3, 2006 at 1838hrs, “moron” was added to Senator Dick Durbin’s biography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=51399014

But what happens when edits are made and nobody is watching? Or when edits are made to wikipedia on other less obvious subjects, like the technical schematics of a Boeing Aircraft? The average person would have no idea that what they are reading is false. Just such a scenario occurred when Boeings competitors “adjusted” details on wikipedia to make the Airbus Corporation appear better than their Boeing competitor. And who would have thought that the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska created “no long term severe impact to the Prince William Sound ecosystem.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill&diff=next&oldid=8931331

Money, Manipulation, and Wikipedia

These scenarios have spawned a new money making opportunity: edit tracking.

While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegation — wired.com

The operative word here is “manipulation” which is what inevitably happens in “wiki-reality.” While most people would quickly realize that “moron” does not belong in Senator Dick Durbin’s biography, how many people would know that 1,198 people lost their lives in the sinking of the Lusitania instead of 1,598? (In its defense, the figure on wikipedia is currently correct—for now.) Imagine the pranksters behind their LCD screens, snickering at the random bits of misinformation they have fed to unaware wikipedia users. How many facts can we trust on a collaborative website when the content is provided—or “adjusted”—theoretically by a single wikiholic who stays up all night? Just because the information is on a public domain does not make it public opinion, let alone the truth. Such problems are the reason why educators en masse are labeling wikipedia articles as unacceptable source material.

“Collaborative content” is a deceptive misnomer—a buzzword with a nice ring to it. In reality, the content goes to the individual: the one who spends the most time editing and re-editing a single article to suit their personal agenda, or vendetta—as in the case of the person who tried (successfully for the short time it lasted) to warp President Bush’s biography. Fortunately for him, the government resources that correct such calumny are myriad. Others are not as fortunate. [edit]