A Blog About Making Culture
Antipedia
July 31, 2006
Wikipedia's an amazing achievement, the kind of thing a lot of us use as a case study of what can go right on the web. But it's an effort that involves a large number of people, touches on politically sensitive issues and gets into topics like culture and authority over information. So it's inevitable there would be a certain number of naysayers, conscientious objectors, bitter ex-contributors, or legitimately frustrated users.
Recently, I've been kind of interested in this subculture of Wikipedians, those who've either quit or are advocating that others do so. Now, I'm not saying anything against Wikipedia, or being an advocate for it. I just think this topic is fascinating.
Probably the most prominent critic of Wikipedia policy is Jason Scott, whom you know from his work on Textfiles.com and his BBS Documentary. I think of him as a Waxy macropatron, collecting a lot of the raw materials of geekdom that make analysis possible. Jason's long been skeptical of many Wikipedia policies, inspiring posts about the Great Failure of Wikipedia, the Godwin-taunting Swastikipedia, five Wikipedia predictions, and the Great Success of the Great Failure.
Those last two items are the most cogent, culminating in Jason's (thus-far definitive) critique of Wikipedia, The Great Failure of Wikipedia. (That transcript is, appropriately, a text file. You can get the original audio at the Internet Archive.) What's great about this recording is that it's hosted by the largest digital archive on the web, features a performance/polemic by the individual who's created the largest solo information archive on the web, and is critiquing the largest collaborative information archive on the web. In short, the Internet Archive doesn't disciriminate: It collects everything. Jason Scott collects items with himself as gateway and curator, and criticizes Jimbo Wales for Wikipedia, which aspires to a libertarian information free-for-all but imperfectly implements democracy.
Jason sums up his argument best himself:
A lot of people thought I was going to attack Wikipedia as being "wrong" and something that should be "stopped", which is a useless argument/approach to take, especially if you're into freedom of expression. My main thesis is that Wikipedia's initial design and architecture, which is now changing constantly, failed to take the reality of humanity and the way people interact with information into account, and in doing so, has wasted a nearly-incalculable amount of energy and has betrayed, to some extent, it's promises, credo and goals. You know, minor stuff.
An excellent counterpoint is the mostly-positive New Yorker piece by Stacy Schiff from last week. Schiff's closing is the strongest part of the article:
As was the Encyclopédie, Wikipedia is a combination of manifesto and reference work. Peer review, the mainstream media, and government agencies have landed us in a ditch. Not only are we impatient with the authorities but we are in a mood to talk back. Wikipedia offers endless opportunities for self-expression. It is the love child of reading groups and chat rooms, a second home for anyone who has written an Amazon review. This is not the first time that encyclopedia-makers have snatched control from an élite, or cast a harsh light on certitude. Jimmy Wales may or may not be the new Henry Ford, yet he has sent us tooling down the interstate, with but a squint back at the railroad. We're on the open road now, without conductors and timetables. We're free to chart our own course, also free to get gloriously, recklessly lost.
There are many more Wikipedia critics, of course, but the ones that fascinate me are the people who used to be contributors but now have sworn off the site. All of these contributors volunteered for their roles before they stopped wanting to participate, but I find it interesting how much they sound like spurned lovers. WindyCityMike posted a request on Ask MetaFilter for information on removing Wikipedia from his entire web experience. (It's worth noting that this is actually difficult to do.) Just as interesting, he's got a complete guide to leaving Wikipedia, which is clearly effective, judging by his user page.
That request wasn't the first time someone had asked to remove Wikipedia from their web experience; Another Ask MetaFilter thread details some techniques for filtering Wikipedia results from your Google searches.
But these complaints aren't (merely) motivated by the technology or pervasiveness of Wikipedia. The real issue is that Wikipedia is a not-so-small community of people, facing the same challenges of governance, accountability, and policing that any community this size would face. I can't help but think that most of these issues arise because Wikipedia essentially runs with the equivalent of a Declaration of Independence but no Constitution. That lack of policy, or the overly vague wording of policy, seems to be the crux of the most convincing critiques. Take user Ikkyu's lengthy discussion of what's wrong with Wikipedia. It's impassioned and articulate, and seems like a reasonable starting point for making this great resource even better. His conclusion is damning in its resignation and apparent frustration:
I still like the Wikipedia, but not as an encyclopedia. It's just an enjoyable, relaxing way to fool around and waste some time; enjoyable for its own sake, but not useful as a finished product. I would never recommend it to my patients nor to anyone else as a source of reliable information.
Indeed, the harshest criticism of Wikipedia doesn't seem to be "It sucks!" but rather, "It could be great!" The negativity of all these legitimate criticisms masks the fact that Wikipedia is still an amazing creation. Because those making these criticisms are credible and articulate, I do believe that there's a real chance at making Wikipedia even better. To be honest, I'm not sure how they'll get there, but I do think it'll happen.
Finally, as someone who's constantly pleading for people online to have a more intelligent, reasonable discourse, it's really pleasing to see a debate that's being carried out in a (mostly) civil manner. I hope what comes out of it is not an attempt to tear down Wikipedia but a chance to fix what's wrong with it. In the meantime, we can enjoy watching a community re-imagine itself.
Previously: Digga, Please!
Next: Anti-Wikipedia Links
Laura Moncur
I read those articles and it seems less like a spurned lover and more like what people go through when they leave a religion.
Has Wikipedia become like a religion to people?
You’re right, it’s a fascinating sociological phenomenon.
Perspective Inc
A very well researched, thought-out and informative post! I personally love wikepedia and can’t find too many ‘faults’ with it..
matt
golly, I read that New Yorker article last week, and the last way I’d describe it is “mostly positive.” When the author calls Wikipedia “a lumpy work in progress,” I think the best you can say is her assessment is “partly positive and partly optimistic.”
Anil Dash 
I read that New Yorker article last week, and the last way I’d describe it is “mostly positive.”
Secret: I don’t actually read anything I link to! :)
Anonypompous
(damn i am stuck with a stupid screen name)
honest and upfront: how much of a nut do you have to be to fall in love with Wikipedia in the first place?
i am glad i still have a healthy dose of skepticism for anything that comes off the Internet … unless it’s off a New York Times or CNN (and there too I don’t exactly say ‘woo - it came off them gods’ site - CNN’) … maybe it’s because i belong to a generation that saw the transition from newspapers and encyclopedias to the Internet …. and can sense that it is still a work in progress.
how can you be so infatuated with something so new? falling out of love is always hard.
but as much as I love the net, I want to fondly believe Wikipedia is WIP not RIP.
Dan Hartung
Ah, surely I should comment on this one, eh?
Right now I’m in the work-in-progress camp, even though I’m as close to quitting the project — after 18 months of daily participation — as I ever have been. Being there is definitely a love-hate kind of experience. I manage mine by steering clear of most flame wars — e.g. Juan Cole — although I sometimes work the edges of such articles, contributing uncontroversial context. I get into my share of disputes, though, and sometimes a smidgen too sharply (possibly to ever be an administrator), but I win most of them ;-).
But the real annoyances for me are some of the policy changes just in that 18 month period, such as the restrictive view of Biographies of Living Persons. I feel it’s interesting (and frustrating) that someone has seriously proposed deleting all living persons who aren’t world leaders from Wikipedia. There’s also a firm policy being promulgated against linking to MySpace for bands when bands all of a sudden have started using it for their most up-to-date news and material. The problem, of course, is that there’s no way to verify that a MySpace account (even a MySpace Music account) is actually owned by the artist, so 9999 band articles will miss out because 1 might link to a copyright infringement.
I see the reasonable positions on both sides here; I’m inclusionist by nature, and would rather see Wikipedia be more useful, unless harm were proven rather than merely possible. That may not be a sustainable legal position for either libel or copyright, though.
But I’ll say again what I have learned above all: editing Wikipedia, including the whole process of write, rewrite, revert, discuss, dispute is much more instructive and interesting that reading Wikipedia and passively gleaning information. It’s very fascinating to participate from the inside (although after such time I still don’t feel like an insider there). But in many ways I now view Wikipedia more as a social networking project than as an encyclopedia per se. Journey vs. reward, &c.
I also said at ikkyu2’s talk page that I early on recognized a key truth about Wikipedia: No article is finished, ever. There isn’t some perfect Platonic version to strive for. If I improve an article now, I try to do what I call “defensive editing”, which is mainly structuring the article so that it will survive the onslaught of stupid visitors and the occasional obtuse registered editor. When I’ve put together an article that covers a subject comprehensively and fairly, especially with citations, it tends to get reverted when damaged by others, proving that I wrote for consensus. I judge such articles successes, as if I’ve groomed a kid to survive the adult world.
These attitudes have helped extend my patience with the project, I suppose, perhaps beyond my normal tolerances. I’ve also begun to think about ways in which Wikipedia’s collaborative approach can be implemented in other domains such as (hey, go for the home run) relationships (geek alert there). Trying to assess my own personal lessons learned, you might say.
Danny
I use Wikipedia daily - work-related for summaries of obscure technical math stuff, leisure-related for just about anything. I am aware that the material can be flawed, sometimes more so than other media (if I see an obvious error I fix it). But as a resource for me it’s second only to Google (different league, but there’s nothing in between).
I suspect the issue with many of the critics is that the idea of the Wikipedia working doesn’t mesh with their world view. So they see problems where they don’t exist to rationalise matters. People don’t like things that undermine their world view, irrespective of the logic (“of course they had WMD, otherwise we wouldn’t have bombed them”).
Mike
Hey, Anil. I noticed the inbound links from your entry and thought I’d also mention that I finally got my tuchus around to laying out a blog entry about why I left Wikipedia — not just how I did it. Considering you’re studying ‘antipedians’ (heh, I like that name), it might be of interest to you.
Amit Patel
It looks like Google will let you remove wikipedia links from their search results, using “Google Co-Op”. See the “ELIMINATE” label on Matt Cutt’s post at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/review-google-co-op/ .
Post a comment