Has Wikipedia editing gone the way of government?
Oh, Wikipedia. Have you really become just another political organization?
I only ask because some clever people with nothing better to do have dedicated their bright gray matter to poring through Wikipedia's pages and drawing conclusions. The members of the Augmented Cognition Research Group at the Palo Alto Research Center could probably solve health care over a nonfat latte and a blueberry scone. Instead, they have examined who makes edits on Wikipedia and whose edits are reversed.
It makes for the same kind of dispiriting reading that you might once have expected from a Politburo travel brochure. You see, it appears that a hierarchy has emerged at Wiki Central, one that seems to have a significant influence in what is published and, indeed, what is removed.
These days, there are between 650,000 and 810,00 active editors of the world's most beloved unofficial encyclopedia, figures that suggest Wikipedia activity has plateaued rather than grown. And this has been accompanied by a jostling for authority that reminds one only of, well, Congress. You know, the place where senior senators seem to be able to get away with, well, I was going to say "murder," but that would be inappropriate until proven.
The researchers seem convinced that editors who make more than 100 edits per month are less likely to have their entries reversed than those who contribute fewer. The group that contributes more than 1,000 edits per month (when was the last time these people saw the sky?) are enthusiastic about acting as the factual bible-writers of our time, to say the least. Between 2005 and 2008, their average number of edits has increased from 1,740 to 2,095.
The boys from Palo Alto seem to believe that those in the editing oligarchy rarely have their contributions deleted, or reverted, as seems to be the parlance. However, those who occasionally take a step away from their normal lives to make an entry are far more likely to have their contributions incised.
The researchers, led by Ed H. Chi, concluded: "We consider this as evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content, especially when the edits come from occasional editors."
It seems, from the Palo Altans' brightly colored graphs, that elite editors only have their work questioned 1 percent of the time, whereas occasional editors can now expect a 15 percent deletion rate.
Oh, Lordy. It's just like the Senate, isn't it? The bigwigs know best, control the most important committees, and generally swan around in limos with the finest companions of the day and night. All the while, the junior senators toil for influence, beg for their voices to be heard, and dream of becoming senior senators.
The Guardian newspaper offered this plaintive quote from a frustrated junior editor, Aaron Schwarz: "There's no place on Wikipedia that says: 'Want to become a Wikipedia editor? Here's how you do it.' Instead, you basically have to really become part of that community and pick it up through osmosis and have the tradition passed down to you."
Oh, why can't people find a more beautiful way to organize themselves? This is the only knowledge our children will ever have. I mean, we don't really expect any of them to read books on a Kindle, do we?
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
I once tried to correct a Wikipedia article about a commercial plane crash in the Middle East since the article had bizarrely turned into anti-US propaganda.
Being a certified pilot myself, I made specific changes citing authoritative sources (NTSB, etc) but each time my changes were reverted by editors as "vandalism". Any evidence which cited US government sources were considered part of a US government "conspiracy" to "cover up the truth", but the editors allowed links to blogs with inflammatory subjective material as long as was anti-US.
As far as I could tell these "editors" were just pushing their anti-US leanings on various Wiki pages that had anything to do with the Middle East. Shame, really, but this is what Wikipedia has become, with various "cliques" of editors controlling various sections of the site.
I still go there since there's a lot of good info but as thejasman says below a lot of it is plagiarized from other sources, so I try to read the original sources instead when possible. But really who has time to check every single fact on Wikipedia, so I take everything I read there with some skepticism.
The wikipedia editors who lord over their little fiefdoms have a serious job guarding the same tired Party line and government-cheerleading that's driving the dinosaur media out of business.
You clearly don't understand the NalPOV requirement (null-America-last-point-of-view).
also, most of their information at best is plagiarism
I use it as a first stop during research, but never last.
Wikipedia is a good starting off point, but asking for complete neutrality is virtually impossible on every issue,.
The quantitative results of the study you cite are not surprising, but I have to disagree with the conclusions. If a disproportionate number of edits by contributors with less than 100 edits are reverted, and a disproportionate number of edits by contributors with a greater number of edits remain, it is not because Wikipedia has a "growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content"; rather, it's because the people with the higher edit counts have been there long enough to understand what is appropriate content and therefore more likely to stay on the site.
Even putting obvious vandalism aside, edits are commonly reverted because they are either non-neutral or non-verifiable--two of the primary principles of the Wikipedia project. Many new users fall afoul of one or both of these, generally because they simply wish to make sure that knowledge or beliefs they have are represented on the site. While more experienced editors are constantly encouraged to work with imperfect contributions, sometimes you simply have to clear it out and start over.
From that day on, I thought that a paid encyclopedia was better than a free one, if the free one abuses you when you use it.
My point was that there is a way to do things, especially for newbies. Wikipedia basically treats people like &*$& . It takes their work for granted and treats all but they inner circle as peasants. reminds me of South Africa during apartheid.
I would suggest that they have become high and mighty in their own mind, and they deserve to be taken down a few pegs.
One way to do this is for a concerted effort in forking Wikipedia where the current inner circle are allowed to edit articles, but they cannot control them. It is open source after all and it should be for the people if it was built by the people.
The problem with anything successful is that greedy people always jostle for control.
This new effort needs to point out the reasons for the fork. Hopefully there is enough disgruntled people to regularly contribute and it catches on from there. One selling point would be that there is a respect for people and their contributions.
Could call it Ospedia (Open Source Encyclopedia) or something like that.
Give it back to the people I say.
His action blocked me from participating in any editing. Furthermore, the Wikipedia site is surprisingly difficult to navigate, and finding avenues of recourse require following many links and paths, most of which are also blocked once your account has been suspended.
So first hand I have seen incredible bias and abuse of authority at Wikipedia. That doesn't reflect on you as there are good people performing needed edits there. But make no mistake, there is a surprisingly large contingent of Wiki "editors" whose egos are bigger than their intellect. And who make emotional decisions when their arguments are refuted. A very sensitive bunch who demand decorum and tact, but who do not feel compelled to reciprocate.
But I suppose that bit of common sense isn't very sensationalistic.
My request to the donators to stop wasting their money on a sodomizing political monopolist organization where its wasting your resources over something which not totally they created themselves or at least try to see the discussion archives of some of the famous articles before proceeding. Not only they are wasting public contributors' time but also your money. Please think before when you donate to them. I myself have suffered alike above commentators tell you the same story. And I am thankful to the writer of this article for bringing some bitter truths about Wikipedia into concern. That's all what I've to say!
Dave Moulton
The mass media buy in to the propaganda is running their business model and destroying their operations and it will do so with Wikipedia. But you have to be active and vocal when you see abuse.
Some would say that One Party rule, with a Chicago Machine outfit taken nationwide, seizing control of every private endeavor, with a "shutup and agree with me or you're a racist extremist" attitude would be the thing to worry about.
But I guess those poor champagne-socialist politicians are just victims of "dirty tricks". No matter how much they work toward Omnipotent government, those damn peons insist on being disagreeable and trying to work for a living, instead of just giving up, trading their vote for a handout, and resigning themselves to dependent poverty...selfish bastards!
Death councils, was one of them. I am sure there were others to.
Whole yes there was the whole Steven Hawkins an he would of been sentence to death if he was treated by the NHS, yeah they ignored small details like I do not know the fact that he live England work in England had his condition has been treated by the NHS pretty from the day it was created an way before he was famous. Pretty handy that. Obviously if this was a serious debate they would mention that we live longer and have lower child mortality rate and we rated 18 overall for health care and yet American rate 37th but who needs the truth when lies will do.
Wikipedia now has a responsibility to ensure correctness and accuracy of content. Granted that Wikipedia promised free editing, regular editors can evolve to bullies as they strive to enforce the quality standard they created themselves. I think it's about time for Wikipedia to have "super editors and reviewers" who are working officially for Wikipedia ensuring that public editors, even the regular ones, are properly guided in implementing Wikipedia's official quality standard.
A fast growing community needs a government. I hope Wikipedia steps in soon enough to prevent multiple governments to pop-up in the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia (the organization) should keep its hold on power and be the Wikipedia community's government.
But I suppose that bit of common sense isn't very sensationalistic. "
I agree with the sensationalistic part of your comment, this is not exactly a newsworthy item overall.
I do, however, take issue with the 'More Experienced Editors' comment...
Shouldn't it be the job of the More Experienced Editors to guide the Less Experienced Editors in how to become More Expericned? If the More Experienced Editors spend their time reverting or deleting comments from the Less Experienced how will the Less Expereinced ever become More Experienced?
Myself, I have given up trying to add, edit, or correct anything in Wikipedia. I have over twenty years of experience in my field of work and I tire of having a 'More Experienced' Editor revert my contributions because they don't understand what or why I am making edits and disagree with my corrections. If it is supposed to be a Group Think project, why are only a 'Few Expereinced Editors' controlling the information flow?
But KillerC sort of sums it all up ... " Did you try to contact any of the opposing editors on their talk page, informing them you were new and asking for help learning the ropes?"
In short, you have to enmesh yourself in Wiki bureaucracy and ask for "guidance" and "learning the ropes" before anything can be accepted.
- by CharlesWDavis August 14, 2009 12:03 PM PDT
- I have only had one opportunity to edit an article with some degree of first hand knowledge. 6 years later my edit is still there.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)My edit was fact, not opinion!