Wikipedia’s Dubious Milestone

As of this second on Sunday morning at 8:03 eastern daylight time, Wikipedia boast 2, 000, 389 articles in its massive user-generated database. It tipped past the 2 million threshold sometime during the night. Pardon me if I didn’t stay up late to catch the moment. This is a major Web content milestone of some sort and it already sparked commemorative reflections on the implications of a user-generated, largely self-policed reference system. What’s use of whining about Wikipedia and all of its accuracy lapses, hoaxes and policy holes? At academic blog “Crooked Timber,” Josh Quiggin writes wisely “One thing is clear though. Complaining about Wikipedia now is like complaining about the Internet. There isn’t going to be any alternative, at least not for quite some time to come.”
There is an obvious class divide over Wikipedia, with media and academics usually falling on the side of loathing the site’s lack of rigor, or at least rigor as defined by classic peer-review and fact-checking regimens. At The Decatur Daily, for instance, a less egg-headed columnist defends the populist ethos of the Wiki idea.
The latest controversy over Wikipedia involves companies (often their PR departments) fluffing up their brands’ own entries and sabotaging entries involving rivals. Just this month Sony got exposed for trying to slip a disparaging remark into the “Halo 3” entry.
You have to wonder what PR lame brain in the Sony organization actually thought that a one line swipe at the game would have any effect at all on the Xbox-selling, PS3-eating juggernaut that will be Halo 3 later this month. Honestly, after a dozen years dealing with media PR flacks, I still wonder where they make some of them.
Ultimately, the conversation surrounding Wikipedia is a conversation about UGC itself and all the ways in which it breaks down the old media hierarchies. Make no mistake, this is a debate that is fueled as much by turf-protection and preservation of power as it is about larger issues of accuracy and bias. Academics (and I say this as a former member of the tribe myself) have a longstanding contempt for popular culture and popular commentary. Apologies in advance to my fellow Ph.D eggheads, but the majority of the whining I heard about popular history when I taught formal history was really about an expert class seeing its status as experts and authorities being threatened. So too, editors at magazines and newspapers continue to be at odds with the new tools for user-generated content at their own sites. Many publishers tell me they have a terrible time getting their editors and writers to engage online communities and even respond to blog commentary. They sense what is coming: some sort of conversational hybrid of formal content that is researched and initiated by editors and media institutions coupled with, informed by, changed by the citizen editors of this interactive medium.
When my fellow eggheads write the definitive history of digital media in the future, it will be about an historic flattening of old hierarchies of knowledge, distribution and authority. And that history will be heavily edited by its readers.
See Also
Posted under Michael's Blog