Wikipedia and Credibility

University of Helsinki Department of Communication Argonaut Study Program

Course: “New Media, Communication and Peace in a Global Knowledge Society”

Professor: Tapio Varis

Wikipedia and credibility

An Essay by Douwe Alexander Hut

University of Helsinki December 2005

2 Table of Contents

Introduction 3

A brief history of Wikipedia 3

The Main Criticisms 4

Criticism concerning the “Wikipedians” 7

Conclusion & Evaluation 9

List of Reference 10

3 Introduction

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in which volunteers are able to add articles. Because of it being interactive, for most researchers it is considered a blog. A blog being a page in which people are able to add articles to a site with the possibilities to create feedback. A current example, which led people and press massively criticize the Wikipedia’s credibility, was a claim of the murderers, to be more specific, an accomplice of the murderer of President John F. Kennedy whom was assassinated in 1961. Another topic which raised the issue of Wikipedia’s credibility was the editing of pod’ s by Adam Curry. Claiming to ensure its credibility it has not stopped press and academics alike to criticize its use as a valid source. In this report I will discus how it was created and with what intentions and will go in further in how the basis of criticism was created. All in all, Wikipedia is just an example of the bias validity in respect to sources. However, Wikipedia is the most well-know. Secondly, I will briefly discus the cases of Adam Curry and Iposting as well the issue of the Kennedy assassination which has created somewhat of a “hype” around the Wikipedia ‘s credibility. Finally, I will briefly discuss the criticism of Wikipedia with an over view of the until now recent criticism.

A brief history of Wikipedia

Wikipedia was created on 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia started as an complimentary project to Nupedia, now primarily know as Wikipedia’s predecessor. Unlike Wikipedia, Nupedia was an online Encyclopedia project which contained strict peer review qualifications. It were Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger whom decided to make a more open-access format. It was Ben Kovitz whom added the “wiki” concept to the project. The concept being a HTML program which easily allows editing and linking on html format. The times that followed were that of the expansion in other languages and the numerous increase of articles within the site itself.

Wikipedia is now seen as problematic because of its change in policy by allowing non- professionals to edit and add articles to the online Encyclopedia. One of the major competitors Britanica has already stated that it does not have concern about the competition. Britanica is another online Encyclopedia which only allows articles written by experts within the field of question.

The Main Criticisms

• Usefulness as a reference

• Use of dubious sources

• Quality Concerns and Difficulty of fact checking

• Systemic bias in coverage and perspective

• Threat to traditional publishers

• Flame wars

• Fanatics and special interests and Exposure to vandals

• Censorship

I will briefly discus most of the criticisms mentioned above. Some will have more explanation due to the importance and weight of the critique. As can already be indicated, most of the criticism being given is not only applicable to Wikipedia only, however, to the entire internet or New Media. However, those who do will be given examples related to Wikipedia only and I will not discuss it further than that in order to stay focused on the subject.

5 • Use of dubious sources

The main issue when it comes to Wikipedia is its credibility sourcing. The site has stricken their posting policies after the JFK assassination claim and the Adam Curry’s role in Iposting. The question which should be asked is: What makes a valuable source? When looking at source credibility in general, the following points are the basis in which to review source credibility:

• Is the author identifiable? Never use a source whose author you cannot identify.

• Is the author a professional in the field?

• If the author's name is unfamiliar, is the site linked to an established authority on the subject?

• Has this author been referred to favorably by respected professionals in the field or by a respectable Web site? Does the document contain links to these professionals or to the respected Web sites? Are there also links from these sources that go back to the site you're assessing?

• Does the author include his/her e-mail address or a mail-to: so that you can contact the author directly from the site?

• Does the author include a way to contact him/her other than e-mail?

• Does the Web site belong to an individual, or is it part of a site maintained by an organization, academic institution, or other group? Does it list the author's position within this group?

So where does Wikipedia fit in this? Despite the fact that Wikipedia requests its users to verify it information accurately, many do not include these references to external sources. As a result it become very difficult to recall where the articles resources are originated from. This leaves the many academics to believe that most of the sources used for the articles are dubious. One possible result can be the use of Wikipedia to serve the user’s own interests. This can be a product or a organization explaining its purpose in a persuasive manner rather than in an objective one. I will further discuss this further within this chapter.

6 • Usefulness as a reference

As mentioned earlier, this critical factor refers to the lack of authority within the Wikepedia site. Many critics believe that the accountability is questionable due to the fact that there is now peer review. Because of Wikipedia branding itself as an Encyclopedia, many critics of which many are academics, believe Wikipedia lacking authority. When discussing Encyclopedias, authority has been required and has been used for centuries since the creation of the Encyclopedia itself. Examples would include the rule Chinese Emperor Cheng-Zu within the Ming Dynasty over seeing the complication of the Yongle Encyclopedia . The Yongle Encyclopedia was a project occurring in the Ming Dynasty in which 2000 scholars making 8000 texts of ancient times. Another example would be the early complication of the Muslim Knowledge using the way of research under the under Islamic Isnad. The Isnad being citations of the Islamic prophet Muhammad used as backing for validity.

These two examples clearly indicating that the desire for authority, concerning Encyclopedias, is a factor which comes forth out of history whether it be a political, royal or a religious authority.

• Quality Concerns and Difficulty of fact checking

Other factors of criticism directly related to the previous two, is the concern for the quality of the articles as well as the difficulty of fact checking. According to experts to the topic in question, the articles qualities varies greatly. A regular browser looking for information whom is unfamiliar with the subject is unable to measure its quality. As already mentioned earlier in the report, the mentioned of sources is left out in most articles. It is because of this that there is great difficulty of checking the validity of the article in question.

At the conference for internet researchers in Toronto in 2003, Barbara Warnick of the University of Washington, presented three problems with assessing tradition standards of evaluating credibility on the world wide web. - General treatment of websites as being subjected to global standards

7 - Internet being self-referring or a “a self-sustaining reference system” - Internet trends resulting into incredibility and unreliability of domain names. (Warnick, Barbara, 2003)

• Systemic bias in coverage and perspective

This particular criticism is aimed at the coverage as well as the point of view in which the articles are written. The bias in coverage refers to the fact that some topics are more covered because of the fact that people write what they are interested in. As a result, there is a difference concerning the depth in which the article is written simply because of the personal preference of the writer.

The bias of the perspective concerns the neutral point of view which Wikipedia is trying to uphold. This bias is one which is unavoidable when letting the articles be written by the general public. However, this is also one of the issues facing internet as a whole. In other words, Wikipedia is being subjected to it as well.

• The threat for the traditional encyclopedias Then there is the threat for the traditional encyclopedias. Publishers and writers of encyclopedias consider Wikipedia a threat due to the fact it is for free. And will in the long run exceed in usage because of it.

Criticism concerning the “Wikipedians”

The following critics are created by the community itself. This community, often referred to as “Wikipedians” which are considered to be the people whom the “nature of trust” is based on. These critics are referred to as the criticism of the community.

• Flame wars

Flame wars is a concept used only within forum-posting. A brief description would be a series of angered discussions on forums. Wikipedia has the option for its member to post their views

8 on topics. Enabling them to discuss the validity of certain topics. Members are able to suggest certain topics on the site to be questionable. This would be a good thing considering this keeps the site more on its toes concerning the content of the topics. However, there is the also another form of Flame Wars which is the basis of the critic concerning Wikipedia, the Holy wars. The Holy Wars are the same as the Flame Wars however, as the name already suggests, there is the emphasis on the religious and value related content. This means that certain topics are contradictory to the value or belief. A concrete example would be the opinion of Christianity against Darwin’s Evolution Theory. The power that given to the members, should they wish it so, are enabled to question it validity because it conflicts with their beliefs.

• Fanatics and special interests and Exposure to Vandals

This critical factor mainly concerns topics considered controversial. There have been cases in which interest groups or fanatics have occupied certain topics for their own interest.

They have done so by blocking any changes made. The main motivation is to block certain points of view on the topic in question.

In a response to this, Wikipedia has made a so-called “three revert rule”. This means that a member is allowed to edit one article three consecutive times in a row within 24 hours. When the user does not following this particular rule, the user will be blocked for 24 hours. Whether this rule is truly effective remains in question.

The site itself states : “Supporters of Wikipedia also frequently claim that undetected vandalism mainly is an issue with low-profile articles.” However, the John Seigenthaler Sr. scandal indicates that the vandals also operate in high profile articles. After having huge media coverage people already have been questioning the future of the website.

The scandal itself is a problem which is occurring al over the web. However, this is a vital issue when concerning the credibility and the trust giving to users when providing information. The risk that Wikipedia took by being accessible and freely editable apparently was a wrong

9 one to take. After the incident, Jimmy Wales stated that only registered users were allowed to edit the site. The question remains whether this is an effective measure as online data for registration can be easily altered.

• Censorship

The censorship in respect to Wikipedia is related to people within the Wikipedia Forum whom consider themselves as censors. They intentially and systematically exclude articles which are then replaced by articles written from a certain perspective. This being contradictory to Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality. Despite the fact it wishes to properly explain various points of views on issues, it is still a common feature within the Wikipedia site.

Conclusion & Evaluation

After a long argumentation in this report I have started to increasingly question it’s own credibility. The reason why I chose this particular subject in the first place was because I never stood still on the credibility of on-line sources. The greatest irony is that some of the sources are from Wikipedia itself. It seems as there fiercely defending its own existence.

I thereby have to state that although all of the sources are from the internet. They are mostly from sources which have established themselves as valid sources with respect to the “Old Media”. The simple fact remains that the information from the internet is more recent then that of traditional medium. The very reason for me making this report became clear during the writing itself. The more I learned on doubtful sources the more skeptical I became of the sources I used myself.

The problems surrounding Wikipedia are a internet problem as well. The criticism I reviewed is based on the bias which has been put on internet itself, especially the credibility and the checking of the source. In conclusion, the writing of this report have left me more questionable about credibility of sources and I believe this will help me in my future researches as a student.

List of Reference

Internet articles:

‘The history of the Ecyclopedia’ article derived from Britanicca (registration required)

‘The book stops here’ by Daniel H. Pink (Wired magazine 13-03-2005) researching Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia, www. wikipedia .org

One great source-if you can trust itby Bray, Hiawatha The Boston Globe (July 12, 2004)

Online Ethos: Source Credibility in an “Authorless” Environment by Barbara Warnick

A false Wikipedia 'biography' by John Seigenthaler USAtoday.com 11/29/2005