FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Wikipedia’s bid to govern knowledge democracy

Wikipedia’s bid to govern knowledge democracy
By Michael Earl
Published: December 18 2005 20:02 | Last updated: December 18 2005 20:02
The news that Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is tightening its rules has lessons for policymakers, information providers and information users in the digital age. Wikipedia has more than 2.5m articles, 850,000 in English alone, covering the fields of knowledge you would expect to find in any conventional encyclopaedia. The difference is that this one is online, is free and has a search facility. In addition, users around the world can not only access it, they provide the content and edit it. It is a global, virtual, collaborative knowledge community.

ADVERTISEMENT



Wikipedia claims to have 2.5bn page views a year and 600,000 users, with 600 authorised editors. Until now, any user has been able to provide or edit a page. But the announcement this month that user registration is to be introduced as an audit trail and that articles will be secured once a recognisable level of accuracy has been achieved – along with today’s news that “stable” and “live” versions of content are planned – is instructive. The move is a response to the apparent misrepresentation of knowledge and people, either by intent or accident. It may, of course, kill off the spontaneity and freedom of Wikipedia. Contributors may lose interest if updating is prohibited or be deterred if they expect retribution for providing content that is later questioned.
This is a classic knowledge-creation conundrum. On the one hand there is real advantage in assembling collective wisdom; on the other hand there are concerns about validity and about incentives – or, more particularly, disincentives – for content contributors.
The philosophy of Wikipedia is that an article gains validity and maintains currency by continuous widespread updating. Thus, hitherto it has not declared any item finished. Wikipedia explains on its website that “editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of neutral point of view” under which notable perspectives are summarised without an attempt to determine an objective truth. But Wikipedia’s status as a reference work has been controversial. Its open nature allows vandalism, inaccuracy and opinion. It has also been criticised for systematic bias, preference of consensus to credentials and a perceived lack of accountability and authority when compared to traditional encyclopaedias.
Wikipedia is already bigger than its online and traditional rivals. Knowledge seekers seem to have judged that it is OK. Indeed, a public good has been created not by a market, as economic theory would predict, but by a community. It is open sourcing of knowledge, or perhaps even a knowledge democracy where users and contributors have been equal.
So what can we learn from Wikipedia so far? First, knowledge requires validation if it is to be a reliable basis for action; but then we might need to validate the validators. One could institute official validating panels or editorial boards. Or contributors could be listed alongside the knowledge domains they have helped create. But if contributors are judged or disclosed, does this create disincentives to contribute through fear of criticism or lawsuits on intellectual property? Evidence from knowledge management initiatives in companies suggests that validation of content given to knowledge databases is needed and there must be incentives to provide content. Recognition as a contributor and feedback may be enough.
Then, consider the users. School children increasingly go to Wikipedia to look up “facts” and as a source for projects and essays – a current issue in UK education debates. Researchers are also users, but experienced researchers will not rely on one source; they will check alternative references and evaluate the sources and content. Children may not have such skills or time. Lazy researchers may not have the will. In a digital knowledge economy we need to teach and develop skills in the use and interpretation of information.
We also need to assess the advisability of creating free, “do-it-yourself”, online knowledge repositories. Should we encourage competition so there is as much choice online as offline and we rely on a “reader beware” policy? Since knowledge creation seems to be an exponential process, the continuous, universally accessible mechanism represented by Wikipedia and its ilk seems necessary and desirable – subject to the lessons of provision and use suggested.
Possibly the most important policy issues in the development of the internet are information reliability and information literacy. Making sources of knowledge contributions transparent and perhaps contactable and developing user skills in evaluating, interpreting and using online knowledge may be necessary conditions in constructing knowledge democracies.
The writer is professor of information management and dean, Templeton College, University of Oxford
_xyz