Filed under: Ethics, Media, Technology — marc moore on March 3, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CET
ValleyWag, the National Enquirer of the tech industry press, outed Jimmy Wales, founder and driving force behind Wikipedia, over the weekend for using his position as head of the online encyclopedia to “encourage” editing of his lover’s profile in the site’s database.
There are plenty of details about, no need to dwell on them here. But Wales’ actions are important. Despite his claims that no Wikipedia rules were broken, this sordid episode is merely the latest example of how Wikipedia’s content can be - and is - manipulated to serve the agendas of individuals in authority there.
Nick Carr has written extensively about Wikipedia and its culture of controlled chaos - highly recommended reading.
When all is said and done I think that Wikipedia is, for the most part, a reliable source of information. However, consider a moderately controversial topic like “Terrorism in Pakistan“, the neutrality and standards of which are both in dispute at the moment.
Who is the final arbiter of this article’s content? On what basis is that person or persons’ authority given? And, at a higher level, what is the standard that is being enforced encyclopedia-wide and by whom?
To quote Wales and another famous philanderer, it “depends on what the meaning of “is” is”.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
