Wikipedia Prank Entry Proves Value of Open Access Concept

Wikipedia is one of the great applications of internet technology, along with search engines like Google and Yahoo, marketplace operations like Craig’s List and eBay, and e-mail. Relying on volunteer contributors, some 13,000 of them, Wikipedia is an internet-based encyclopedia of data organized to take advantage of hypertext. Recently, one contributor put some false information on Wikipedia to deceive a co-worker. The media jumped on this, calling Wikipedia’s reputation for accuracy into doubt. What the case actually proves is that the idea of having an open encyclopedia allows good information to supplant the bad.

According to the BBC, “Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. It is based on wikis [a lovely Hawaiian word meaning fast or quickly], open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.” In a world of reactionary talk radio, “liberal” Hollywood, and a preference for ideology over ideas, it is clearly open to abuse because it is based entirely on trust.

The case in question involved an entry for John Seigenthaler, an American journalist. Some jackass named Brian Chase decided to put in Wikipedia that Mr. Seigenthaler was a suspect in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers. His false information showed up in May 2005. In September, a friend of Mr. Seigenthaler noticed it and informed him. The journalist contacted Wikipedia, and the erroneous information was deleted. He then attacked Wikipedia in USA Today as “a flawed and irresponsible research tool.” Wikipedia has since tightened its rules for posting information. And on December 9, Mr. Chase was found out.

What is fascinating about all of this is that today, December 16, there is a full detailing of the incident – on Wikipedia. All of it is cross-indexed and hyperlinked to other relevant subjects. Apparently, one or more of the 13,000 contributors decided to keep on top of the Mr. Seigenthaler’s entry to keep it that up-to-date.

Meanwhile, the British scientific journal Nature compared Wikipedia to the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica. According to Nature

Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias [sic, Nature is British]; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature’s news team. Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.