Good To See: Wikipedia Moves Forward With Color Coding Less Trustworthy Text

from the teaching-people-to-be-skeptical dept

More than two years ago, we talked about a great idea to deal with the (somewhat misleading) question of the trustworthiness of Wikipedia: color code new edits from untrustworthy editors. Not only would this alert people to at least double-check that particular info, it would remind people that Wikipedia is a constantly changing site. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed that I hadn't heard much about this idea since that summer of 2007. However, apparently, it's been gaining in popularity, and now Wikipedia is set to start using it across the site. Here's how it works:

Based on an person's past contributions, WikiTrust computes a reputation score between zero and nine. When someone makes an edit, the background behind the new text gets shaded orange depending on their reputation: the brighter the orange, the less "trust" the text has. Then when another author edits the page, they essentially vote on the new text. If they like the edit, they'll keep it, and if not, they'll revert it. Text that persists will become less orange over time, as more editors give their votes of approval.

While there are some concerns about how well this will work (and how much processing power it will take), it seems like a worthwhile experiment.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Doctor Who Uploaded Rorschach Images Now Being Investigated

from the can-we-look-up-witch-hunt dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about the argument over whether or not it was okay that a doctor had uploaded the public domain (and available in pretty much any library) original Rorschach ink blots to Wikipedia. The whole thing was perfectly legal and reasonable in the view of many. But some strong believers in the ink blots seem to think that even though the images are in the public domain, they have some sort of right over them. The thinking, on their part, is that keeping the ink blots secret protects the integrity of the test -- which totally ignores the fact that these ink blots are already widely available (and the fact that it seems rather unlikely that all that many people are going to "study up" for their Rorschach tests.

But, it hasn't stopped a witch hunt against the guy who uploaded the images. Apparently, he's being investigated by his local doctors' organization for "unprofessional" actions. The complaints against him are equally ridiculous. They say that this is "serious misconduct" because he "shows disrespect to his professional colleagues in psychology and disparages them in the eye of the public."

So apparently no doctor is ever allowed to question any methods used by psychologists? Yikes. Talk about a chilling effect.

Even more to the point, I fail to see how sharing public domain knowledge with the world can be unprofessional or an ethical breach. It seems like the exact opposite. I would think it's a hell of a lot more unethical to trump up bogus ethics charges and investigations against the doctor who actually put that content on Wikipedia.

70 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Perhaps Brain Surgeons Do Use Wikipedia...

from the brain-surgery? dept

I have a good friend who's a surgeon at a big, well-known hospital. Not so long ago, he told me that he'd often use Google to look up details on a surgery he was about to perform, as it was often a great way to remind him of certain things, or even to reacquaint himself with a few important points for the surgery. He thought it was silly that doctors bashed such things, as it wasn't like all of his medical training and surgical experience and knowledge went out the window by reading up on things online. It reminded me of one of the typical complaints against Wikipedia: that you wouldn't want your brain surgery conducted by the crowd reading Wikipedia, but by a surgeon trained at a medical school. That, of course is a silly strawman, since (a) you wouldn't want someone to conduct brain surgery if they learned about it solely from any written source, rather than going to medical school and (b) it assumed that of all the people looking at and editing Wikipedia, none of them were brain surgeons themselves.

I'm thinking of this, as I see this story noting that 50% of doctors admit to doing research on Wikipedia. I'd guess a few of them are even brain surgeons. So can we get rid of this stupid claim that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy? The studies mentioned in the article found that medical info on Wikipedia has a very high level of accuracy. No, no one's learning brain surgery from Wikipedia, but to pretend its not a useful resource among many others is simply ignoring reality.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How You Feel About Rorschach Tests On Wikipedia Says A Lot About You

from the meta-meta-rorschach-test dept

The NY Times has an article about how a group of psychologists are quite upset that the original 10 "Rorschach test" ink blots have been added to Wikipedia, along with brief explanations of what people commonly see in the ink blots (here's the Wikipedia page on the Rorschach test). As I would hope most of you know, Rorschach tests are used by some psychologists, believing that what people see in the blots can tell the psychologist a lot about their personality. The ink blots themselves are in the public domain, so there's really no legal issue over them being available, but that hasn't stopped the complaints. Some psychologists are worried that this creates a "cheat sheet" that will be abused. To that, I say that if your test is so easily gamed, it's time to find a different test.

But, much more bizarre is the claim by the German publisher of Rorschach's book, Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, that it's likely planning legal action:

We are assessing legal steps against Wikimedia.... It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia to on one hand point out the concerns and dangers voiced by recognized scientists and important professional associations and on the other hand -- in the same article -- publish the test material along with supposedly 'expected responses.'

It's pretty difficult to see any leg to stand on. The content is clearly in the public domain. And, on top of that, the issue shouldn't be with Wikimedia, but the guy who uploaded the images. Also, most of that statement from the publishing company doesn't make much sense. It's not cynical to both post the images and the discussion about the concerns. It's actually quite logical and reasonable.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Fact Checking? Newspapers Duped By Wikipedia Edit Again

from the nobody-fact-checks-any-more dept

Earlier this year, we noted how the press got caught relying on Wikipedia when they reprinted an error (amusingly, those press clippings were then used to "verify" the info in Wikipedia). It appears to have happened again. Clay Shirky points us to the news that a student in Ireland added a fake quote to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre, a French musician who died in March. The student added the fake (but potentially real-sounding) quote soon after Jarre died, and many reporters apparently included the quote in their obituaries/writeups about Jarre. Of course, Wikipedia-haters may use this to point out the horrible questionable nature of Wikipedia content, but that's missing the point. Everyone knows that Wikipedia content should be considered suspect since anyone can edit it. It's a known quantity. For the most part, then, if you're a reporter, it should never be used as a sole source on something, but for background info that can also be checked elsewhere. The real issue was that the press didn't do this -- and didn't do their jobs in actually confirming the info.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wikipedia Threatens Artists Over Domain Name Of Art Project Involving Wikipedia

from the openness? dept

First up, a disclosure: back in college, Nathaniel Stern, one of the main characters in this post, was a very close friend of mine -- someone I hung out with a lot. After college, though, he and I mostly lost touch -- other than a random email or Facebook message back and forth. The last time I heard from him, in fact (and the first time I'd heard from him in at least two years), was when he sent out an email alerting me to the fact that he (along with one other artist) had launched a project called WikipediaArt. The idea was to create an art project on Wikipedia, but which stayed within Wikipedia's rules. Nat's become a pretty well-known artist over the years, often experimenting in new media art, and the project itself struck me as quite interesting, though I doubted it was even remotely possible, given the way Wikipedia works. You knew that it would get deleted. However, I never expected the folks behind Wikimedia to go legal on them.

But, that's what's happened.

Both the EFF and Paul Levy (who has agreed to represent Wikipedia Art) have alerted us to the news that Wikipedia is demanding the artists hand over their domain by threatening legal action. As the EFF and Levy point out, this is a rather surprising move by the Wikipedia foundation, who should know better than to make a bogus demand on a URL just because it includes Wikipedia's name in it:

Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here. First, the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law. Moreover, even if U.S. trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use. Wikipedia Art uses the "Wikipedia" mark to refer to the project: a critical comment on Wikipedia and creativity. The disputed site describes the project, provides links to media coverage of the project, and so on. It does not use any more of the Wikipedia mark than need be; for example, it doesn't even use the Wikipedia logo. Simply put, the site does not purport to be, nor does it look anything like, Wikipedia and the artists have done nothing to suggest Wikipedia endorses their work. Finally, the creators are engaging in precisely the kind of critical speech sheltered by the First Amendment.

While the EFF does note how odd it is for Wikipedia to be taking these actions, it leaves out the fact that Wikipedia is represented by Mike Godwin, (of Godwin's Law fame), who was also the first EFF in-house lawyer and absolutely should know better than this. Hopefully Godwin and Wikipedia come to their senses, apologize and back down.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wikipedia's Circular Logic Pops Up Again

from the where-does-truth-come-from? dept

Germany has a new minister of economic affairs, named Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. That's a mouthful, and apparently a number of German media outlets went to the guy's Wikipedia entry for some help. But some prankster had added a "Wilhelm" in the middle, which got printed in several places. The change on Wikipedia was noticed and corrected, but then reverted to the incorrect Wilhelm version -- with one of the press stories cited as the source. So, somebody inserts an incorrect "fact" into Wikipedia, the "fact" gets reprinted elsewhere based on the Wikipedia entry, gets correctly removed from Wikipedia, then incorrectly reinserted using one of the incorrect articles as "proof" of its veracity. That sounds pretty similar to establishing your newsworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia by getting a newspaper article written about how you're not in Wikipedia. All's well that ends well, though, since the minister's correct name now appears in his entry. But as Wikipedia continues to be perceived by more and more people as a very authoritative source, this sort of incident is likely to happen again.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Britannica Boss Trash Talks Google And Wikipedia

from the focus-on-your-own-product dept

A few months back, we ran an an interview with Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopaedia Britannica. That interview was in response to an earlier post, done by Tim Lee, where Tim suggested Britannica should basically just give up. Cauz talked up some new initiatives under way, and now the company has announced a more Wikipedia-like version. Users can submit changes, which are then reviewed by an editor before inclusion. Apparently, they're focused on ensuring at most a 20 minute turnaround. If so, that's impressive. However, what struck me is that Cauz seems unhealthily focused on both Wikipedia and Google.

He seems to be trash talking both of them, specifically scolding Google for linking to Wikipedia so high up so often -- and then complaining (yet again) that Wikipedia's quality isn't really that good. I'm not sure I agree on either point (and, to be honest, there are times I do Google searches and am upset when the top result is not to a Wikipedia entry -- as I've come to almost expect it now), but even if we grant Cauz the premise that (a) Wikipedia has quality problems and (b) Google favors Wikipedia too much, it still seems slightly worrisome that Cauz is even trash talking about those issues. Obviously, it wouldn't make sense to ignore either company, but a good CEO focuses on his company's own strengths in interviews and avoids trashing the competition most of the time. Whenever I see execs doing the opposite, it almost screams out insecurity about the company's own products and their quality. Yes, Britannica has an uphill road to climb after not recognizing the transformative nature and the threat posed by Wikipedia -- but the way to do it isn't by tearing Wikipedia down even as Britannica builds up its own product, but by focusing on the quality of that product.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren't In Wikipedia

from the circular-logic dept

A Las Vegas-based Celtic band was the subject of a local newspaper article discussing how it wasn't listed in Wikipedia. A member of the band, Killian's Angels, noticed this when she checked the Wikipedia article about the soundtrack to the Grand Theft Auto IV video game, upon which the band appears. Every other band had a Wikipedia entry, so eventually one of the band's fans wrote one about them -- and it was deleted later that day because the band wasn't, according to Wikipedia editors, "notable." Cue the newspaper article... and then the follow-up, saying the band was back in Wikipedia, with an entry linking to the original story. A Wikipedia spokesman told the paper that "Sometimes furor over a deletion leads to a newspaper article, he said, which leads to notability that warrants a Wikipedia page." So a band isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but then an article saying just that makes them notable enough for inclusion?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Online Watchdog Admits It Goofed On Wikipedia Ban; Reverses Decision

from the a-bit-late-for-that dept

After being subject to widespread ridicule for forcing Wikipedia in the UK to block a page for an album cover graphic from 32 years ago, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has withdrawn its block on the page and said it's fine. Apparently "given the age and availability of the image," the group no longer thinks it's appropriate to be on the list. Of course, the age and availability of the image was true before. Though, if anything, this attempt at blocking the image only made the image more available.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK ISPs Block Wikipedia Page; Cause Problem With UK Editing

from the unintended-consequences dept

One of the big problems with the idea of various governments around the world coming up with "blacklists" that ISPs have to block access to, is that it will always create huge questions over borderline content. At least if there's a lawsuit that involves taking down specific illegal content, there's due process to determine if the content is actually illegal. But handing that authority to a single entity with no outstanding review process seems quite dangerous. And, now, it's resulted in a variety of UK ISPs, who subscribe to Internet Watch Foundation UK's blacklist, to block a particular page on Wikipedia. The page itself is about an album, Virgin Killer, from the German band Scorpions. Apparently, the cover of the album includes a photo that many feel is child pornography.

However, in blocking out this page, there have been some unintended consequences. Apparently, the way that the ISPs are blocking access to the page involves a transparent proxy, that effectively routes all customers through a very small number of IP addresses -- and that's causing a second problem. Many of the users of those ISPs are now banned from editing any Wikipedia article. Basically, if anyone from those IPs gets on the banned list, it now affects every user, and that's what's happened for at least a segment of the UK population at this point.

And, of course, this action hasn't done anything to prevent or slow down the spread of a potentially illegal image. Because of the attempted block -- The Register notes the image is still available on Amazon's UK site -- plenty of others are also posting the image to point out how silly it is to set up such a block. Once again, this demonstrates the futility of such filtering systems. If certain content is illegal, go after it with laws -- not a secretive filtering process that will create unintended consequences with no warning.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No One Ever Said You Should Rely On Wikipedia For Drug Info

from the if-you-didn't-know-that-already dept

There are a bunch of headlines today about a new study that notes that you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for drug info that I'm sure has various Wikipedia-haters feeling good about themselves. Of course, the details of the study suggest that Wikipedia comes out of the study looking much better than you might expect.

First of all, who relies on any encyclopedia for comprehensive drug information? That's not the purpose of any encyclopedia. But, more to the point, the study didn't find any errors in Wikipedia info, compared to their review of Medscape Drug Reference, a peer-reviewed site. While MDR did provide the answers to many more questions than Wikipedia, four of the answers in MDR were inaccurate, while none in Wikipedia were. The real issue was that Wikipedia's info wasn't as complete, often leading to "errors of omission." Of course, again, things aren't as bad as they seem, as the researchers noted that while watching Wikipedia entries over a 90 day period, the entries improved greatly, a process that's likely to continue.

So, basically, the study pretty much points out the obvious: you shouldn't have been relying on Wikipedia as your sole source for anything, let alone something as important as questions about pharmaceuticals you're taking. But, as a starting point that is backed up with multiple other sources, it might not be that bad. And, that's exactly what Wikipedia is designed to do.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

German Politician's Plan To Block Wikipedia Backfires... Badly

from the nice-try,-though dept

How many times will situations like the following happen before people realize how badly trying to suppress information online backfires? Apparently, a German politician who was upset about some things in his Wikipedia profile went to court and got a judge to issue an order to block Wikipedia's German site. Of course, as soon as news of this came to light, the politician backed down and apologized. So, instead of getting the information he wanted suppressed, now that information has been brought to many more peoples' attention, and (of course) the site will remain accessible. Good work.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Uneasy Balance Between Wikipedia And Truth

from the it-ain't-always-there dept

I've long been a staunch defender of Wikipedia -- a site that I think many of us find quite useful. Most of the criticisms directed at Wikipedia come off as misguided -- and usually come from people who only just realized that anyone can edit it and insist this is somehow bad before recognizing that this usually tends to be pretty good, because it means mistakes tend not to last very long. That isn't to say that mistakes aren't made -- or even that they're not made quite frequently. But, as long as you recognize that Wikipedia, by itself, is not meant to be the definitive source, then it is still an amazingly useful repository of information that can be used as a starting point.

However, Simpson Garfinkel has an interesting article pointing out that there is one element of Wikipedia's relationship to "truth" that should be examined. That is, the site very highly values verifiability over truth. In other words, it will always side with a citation over personal knowledge -- even if that citation is incorrect. This leads to some odd situations, when you think about it. After all, people will point out that Wikipedia's advantage over something like Britannica is that mistakes stay for much longer in Britannica. But, that might only be true if the Wikipedia entry isn't based on a false citation.

If the Wikipedia entry is based on a false citation, and there's no other citation that contradicts it, then it's likely that Wikipedia's entry will remain wrong, but citable. So, the easy editing of Wikipedia is a bit meaningless if the source of the false fact is not also editable (or if there's no citation that shows the original citation is wrong). I've seen this myself lately with the short entry about me. While I do take quite seriously the typical admonition not to edit your own entry, I have checked it at times. What amuses me, is that it tends to have my birthday wrong (flipping the month and the date, such that my real birthday -- December 8, or 12/08 -- is flipped to August 12, or 08/12). I've been watching a couple of people (one of whom I'm pretty sure I know) argue back and forth about the date, with the person who keeps flipping it back to the wrong date claiming at one point that he is me. He's not. Of course, I don't take this as evidence of Wikipedia's failure, but more a reminder of what the site is and what it's not. It's a useful starting point for investigation, which is quite often reliable and sufficient, but I wouldn't recommend betting your life on it. Or even your birthday.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sorry, But The Current Financial Crisis Has Nothing To Do With Naked Short Selling Or A Wikipedia Edit War

from the please dept

For quite some time, Overstock's CEO, Patrick Byrne, has been on something of a... campaign against the practice of "naked short selling." Byrne isn't known for holding back his opinions on just about anything, and his complaints about naked short selling resulted in a rather massive Wikipedia edit war -- with folks on every side pointing fingers and arguing with each other over supposed dirty tactics by folks on the other side. Now, with the whole financial collapse thing happening, The Register (one of few publications to take Byrnes' side most of the time, often due to its irrational dislike of Wikipedia) is claiming that Byrne has been "vindicated," first on the evils of naked short selling, and second on the Wikipedia edit wars.

If only it were so simple. As this excellent Alex Blumberg/Planet Money podcast makes quite clear, while naked short selling may be sketchy, it's impact is minimal, if anything. And, as anyone with a most basic understanding of markets can tell you, short selling (naked or otherwise) doesn't drive down the price of a stock. The Register also suggests that Byrne was vindicated in the Wikipedia edit war, by noting proof (that is not shown, and was only provided to The Register by Byrne) that a reporter who had formerly denied taking part in the edit war, actually had been involved. That's not exactly a huge smoking gun either. It may be that this guy had a personal vendetta against Byrne, but it's got little to do with the financial crisis going on today. There are lots of things that created this mess: but naked short selling (even if the SEC came out against it, in part) is currently a minor scapegoat, not the cause.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Appeals Court Tells Homeland Security That Wikipedia Alone Isn't Sufficient Evidence For Refusing Asylum To A Refugee

from the DHS-didn't-realize-this? dept

While I tend to think that Wikipedia is a good thing overall, that's because I know it's not a source that should be relied on by itself for important decisions -- such as whether or not to grant political asylum to an individual. It can be useful as a starting point, if that information can be corroborated elsewhere. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security felt otherwise in using Wikipedia to deny a request for asylum for a woman. An Appeals Court has now overturned that decision, noting the problems with using Wikipedia as a sole source of info, but the whole scenario should make you wonder. Did DHS really not have the ability to check the legitimacy of the woman's documents without resorting to Wikipedia? What sort of resources are provided to immigration officials that they're making judgments based on a Wikipedia page?

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Wikimedia Isn't Liable For Statements On Wikipedia

from the section-230-isn't-user-editable dept

Back in May, when literary agent Barbara Bauer sued the Wikimedia Foundation, claiming that it was liable for various critical comments on the site (such as the ones calling her the "dumbest of the twenty worst" agents, who has "no documented sales at all"), we suggested she probably would have saved a lot of time, effort and heartbreak using Wikipedia to look up Section 230 of the CDA that says that service providers are not liable for the content of their users. Instead, she went forward with the lawsuit and had the court teach her the lesson that Wikipedia could have: the court tossed out the case, noting that the Wikimedia Foundation is not liable under section 230. The end result for Barbara Bauer? She doesn't get to sue Wikipedia, and her actions brought a lot more attention to the fact that she has a lot of critics. I have no idea how "smart" she is as a literary agent, but this didn't seem very "smart" concerning how to respond to criticism of her reputation.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Anonymity Good Or Bad For Wikipedia?

from the depends-on-who-you-ask dept

Last year plenty of attention was paid to the release of Wikiscanner, a tool from Virgil Griffith that connected the IP addresses of Wikipedia edits with the companies from which they came. This resulted in a few PR flare ups as people noticed some questionable editing by biased parties. Griffith has now upgraded Wikiscanner to do even more (and renamed it to Wikiwatcher). While the revelations probably won't be as surprising, it will allow some way of connecting those who may have edited at home to their employers.

However, perhaps an even more interesting discussion is somewhat buried at the end of the Forbes article linked above: the question over whether or not anonymity is a good or bad thing for Wikipedia. The article quotes Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, complaining that Wikipedia needs to do a better job protecting individuals' privacy. Griffith responds that removing anonymity should improve the quality of Wikipedia:

"I would say that if people are anonymous, the quality of their contribution is probably much lower. Wouldn't you want Wikipedia users to be held accountable for what they change?"

This brings up a few interesting questions. Rotenberg's complaint seems misplaced. The fact that your IP address is revealed with each edit is a known fact. Anyone editing Wikipedia should take that into account. That's hardly Wikipedia's problem. But anonymity can also be an important factor in getting content out. And so far, it appears that all of the "scandals" associated with Wikiscanner were related to biased parties changing info in their favor -- which certainly suggests Giffith has a point: catching those who are changing Wikipedia with ulterior motives does seem to improve the reliability of the site.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Would Wikipedia Be The Same With Edits Needing Approval?

from the loses-some-of-the-appeal dept

Wikipedia has apparently been testing a system by which new edits from most users don't show up for most visitors until they get approved by someone with "authority." The plan sounds similar to one that was suggested a year ago -- but in that case, the new edits would simply be shaded in a different color to warn people that they hadn't been reviewed. That seems much more effective than completely waiting to approve any edit -- especially since the "approvals" are really just to weed out vandalism, not to review the actual trustworthiness of the content. But with color coded "unreviewed" content, it will remind users to make sure they're even more cautious than they should be with regular Wikipedia content. Either way, requiring approval before edits go live seems like it would take away much of the spirit that made Wikipedia what it is today.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

That Weird Compulsion To Put Info On Wikipedia

from the can't-resist dept

With all the questions zipping around about whether or not Wikipedia is "good" or "bad," one thing that often gets lost in the shuffle is the question of why people contribute to Wikipedia. Toronto's Globe and Mail has a fascinating column written by, Ivor Tossell, the guy who edited the Wikipedia page about Meet the Press to add in the fact that Tim Russert died. This isn't the guy who got fired for editing Tim Russert's Wikipedia page, but someone who went to the Meet the Press website soon afterwards and noticed that it hadn't yet been updated.

What's most fascinating is that he's not sure why he edited it, but he felt compelled to. It wasn't so much to make sure that the public was properly informed -- but more for personal gratification: the fact that he was "the first" to get there and notice it. As he says, "it was more like the primal instinct that makes people shout "First!" on online forums, a recognition of the improbable act of stumbling across a special place at just the right time." In other words, it's not about some grand social consciousness or need to participate -- but for wholely selfish reasons: to be able to say that he was the guy who did it. To make him feel special.

What is it about breaking news that can turn bemused onlookers into frothing fan-boys? The ability to edit Wikipedia should have lost its thrill by now. People having been fraudulently offing each other on Wikipedia for ages; the comic Sinbad appeared on the public radar for the first time in years when he had to insist that his Wikipedia page exaggerated reports of his own demise. A British Web magazine called B3ta.com ran a competition last year to see whose virtual celebrity assassination would last the longest on Wikipedia. But those were just diversions.

The action is in writing history as it happens. As Noam Cohen of the Times observed, Wikipedia guarantees its readers a large audience. There's no shortage of ways to publish things online, most of which will start with readerships of precisely zero. The Internet gives everybody the power to be ignored. But editing a Wikipedia page that's at the heart of a breaking news story will affect thousands upon thousands of readers.

So, despite all those who claim that those who give up their "free" labor are being exploited, or even those who suggest that such endeavors are "communist," it appears that it really comes back to your basic capitalist instincts: self-interest rules the day. If there's a personal benefit, no matter how silly, for someone to feel like they were the first to provide the info, it will get provided.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..