Dan, I cannot applaud you enough for writing this. You give eloquent expression to my own gratitude for Wikipedia and its *daily* presence in my life. As a writer, and simply a citizen of the world interested in learning, I turn to it constantly to learn and be informed. It’s why I’ve also chosen for years to be one of its many financial contributors. I contribute because Wikipedia gives me hope for mankind. It gives me heart. Thank you again, Dan.
I’m a retired librarian and wiki user since the 1990’s. It is and always has been a gift which overlaps with the credo of public librarianship. I’m proud to support them. These days I often reflect that of all the techbros, Wikipedia is the only one that didn’t be(come) evil.
I am not a prolific Wikipedia editor, but I have enough experience that it informs some of the big issues. First, if you want to teach a young adult to read and write, Wikipedia is a great exercise. I wish this had been available to me when I was young. The policies enforce a discipline which are a necessary condition for every kind of writing: faithfully read the text and rewrite the content in your own words. I hope I am not confessing to stupidity here, but this was hard for me to learn.
The strength of Wikipedia has little to do with trust and truth. Reliability is the highest achievable standard given the plethora of volunteer and often anonymous content creators. The credibility of the editor is irrelevant, as it should be. Every valid Wikipedia edit is merely a rewording from a reliable source. When editing does not meet that standard, it's junk. So an enormous reform effort is incremental; that is, it consists of editors citing sources and re-writing content to make it consistent with a reliable source. That does not make it true, but it does direct readers to sources so that they are in a better position to evaluate its truthfulness.
Thought provoking piece, Dan. All I do with Wikipedia is read it a lot, and make occasional financial contributions - and I feel better about both, having read your post.
Great explanation for the viability of Wikipedia on its birthday. It has certainly been a godsend in my life for getting important, and sometimes, not so important, as in trivial, info when I needed it, during the last 25 years.
However, being the Pollyanna that I am, I like to think that if Jimmy Wales got hit by a bus, (or jumped into the river at Bedford Falls), somebody else would have come along to create Wikipedia or similar. It developed to meet a need; the necessity of providing a rapidly and instantly connected world that was waking up and demanding to have more and more info about itself. ❤️🇨🇦
Very well thought through Mr Gardner. It's rare that I fully agreecwith anyone, I am a bit of a grouch. But you are totally right here. Nice work. I hope it is widely shared.
I think you need to make a list of good big things on the internet- there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv?wprov=sfti1#. Then there’s the Linux os, and tens of thousands of many years of software available for anyone for free.
Wikipedia is great but is not the only good thing.
I take your point -- there's lots that good on the Internet -- but I think you miss mine: None is a giant on the scale of Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. Except Wikipedia.
This confusion between operations and editorial mimics the eternal fight over the CBC in Ottawa. We see it in Hansard records constantly. The government sends over $1 billion to the broadcaster annually. The law says politicians cannot touch the newsrooms. But the money link creates a perception of bias that no law can fix. Your idea to move Wikimedia to Switzerland is smart. Physical distance is often the only way to prove you are truly independent.
I don’t think there is evidence of “systemic bias” throughout English Wikipedia. And the X-crowd hand-wringing about the site as a whole is misplaced, if their position was some version of “you can’t trust anything on wiki”.
OTOH, it’s a different accusation if the contention is directional bias on contentious issues. That might be considered “anecdote” as a reflection of the entire project, but may amount to something more substantial with regards to the specific topic of discussion.
And anecdotes of hyper-partisan editors who are incredibly active within very specific domains (as demonstrated by Woodgrains) would seem to lend credence to that POV. It doesn’t impugn the whole project of 7 million articles, but it should trigger some caveat emptor around some hot-button stuff.
(Edit: btw, here is another “anecdote” by Woodgrains…)
I'm old enough to remember that Microsoft tried to make and sell a product equivalent to a software version of an Encyclopedia. I don't remember the name.
I do remember that an argument was 'would you fly in an airplane built by random volunteers.'
Disclaimer, I'm a long-time critic of Wikipedia. I hope I'm a "thoughtful" one, but never mind. And I don't want to spend all day writing a critique which will have no effect, so grant me some charity to hit some high points, and be blunt.
If you have never tried to edit a controversial Wikipedia article, you have no idea of the insanity behind the facade. Sorry, it's disqualifying in my view. It's something that needs to be experienced directly and personally. And of course, to some Wikipedia-boosters, that then invalidates the critic - which is part of the point of the criticism.
"However energetic this one editor is, however bad his efforts may be, he is the equivalent of a vandal spray-painting graffiti on the side of a battleship." - NO! THIS IS FALSE! He was not an aberration, but a very high-ranking, extremely well-protected and senior member. He regularly abused his position to harass people, and got away with it. The relevant analogy is much more akin to the corrupt officials in Trump's administration, not "one bad apple".
"Let's make Wikipedia better.". That can't be done. The entire structure of it is designed to reward petty power-tripping and worse. Again, are you going to try to make the Trump administration better?
Moreover, you're making what I call the "cockroach" argument. That is, if you dine at a restaurant, and you find a big cockroach in your food, it's not a good defense for the owner to say: "But that's only one cockroach - you don't see any other cockroaches, do you? In fact, let's not blow this out of proportion. We have to keep it in perspective. The rest of these meals, without cockroachs that you can see, are pretty good, aren't they?". To be clear, the idea is if you see one big cockroach in your food, there's probably a horde of others around somewhere.
Eh, this is long enough. You may mean well, but you're still working too much from the PR of Wikipedia, and not enough from the analysis that the serious critics have done (which I'll grant is sometimes lost in the culture war).
Thanks for referring to Wales as "co-founder" here though. It's the right thing to do.
On editing: I've spoken to lots and lots and lots of people who have edited, including going out of my way to find people frustrated by the process. In other words, I did journalism the way journalism is always done. If you think that's disqualifying, your beef is with journalism, not me. (And I think you're wrong.)
As to much that follows, even if I grant you all you say is perfect reflection of reality, why does that lead it "it can't be improved?" I don't get it.
On cockroaches: Public health regulations typically allow some level of contamination or whatever because perfection is impossible in human affairs. And if that were the standard, not only would all the restaurants be closed, so would all the food production. And we'd be dead. I'm pro staying alive. Controversial, I know, but there it is.
Re: the "co-founder" thing. I thought about including something about that little controversy but forgot. I know people love to obsess over such things. Writing historian, particularly technology history, I encounter heaps of that sort of "controversy." I think it's silly, in general, and it's particularly silly here -- because Wikipedia wasn't created by Jimmy Wales and/or Larry Sanger, it was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and dozens and dozens of others who were in at the beginning. And even more to the point: the beginning was just the beginning. The real answer to the question, "who founded Wikipedia" is "millions of people." So, sorry, I just don't care about that label one way or the other.
[look out the window == try editing controversial articles]
It can't be improved because the very structure of Wikipedia denigrates expertise in a topic. That's directly what goes wrong in one of your proposals. The joking way of describing this is Wikipedia's unofficial motto is "experts are scum". That anti-expert aspect is intrinsic to how it works. This is a long-time critic point which doesn't seem to ever get through.
I most strongly disagree with your characterization about "silly". It's matter of someone much more powerful taking away deserved credit from someone much less powerful. Another part of journalism is "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." (not the reverse!)
On the old saying: There's only one weather outside. If you go and look, that's it. What you are describing is not that, which is perfectly obvious if you imagine me saying, "I tried editing and it was easy therefore the complaints are false." I cannot believe you are arguing that that is a serious diagnostic!
And I really, really don't want to engage the "founder" debate. Which, yes, I think is silly. Why? Because it's the title isn't defined and the criteria aren't defined so it's a completely subjective judgement. In other words, two perfectly reasonable, fair-minded people, may investigate the facts and come to opposite conclusions, and there's no way to decide who's right (provided neither has made factual errors). In other other words, there's a case to be made for co-founder, there's a case to be made for founder, and reasonable people can and will differ. And... it doesn't matter. Neither of them built Wikipedia. Millions did.
I am not a fan of how some of the money is spent (financing the lifestyles of some of the Valley elite, for example, is not high on my priority list). But I recognise that nothing is perfect and the whole thing, and the whole thing's independence, are of such value to humanity that I keep supporting it with my money as well as some of my time.
You can take issue with aspects of how anything is run and still have faith that they are worth trying to fix and that the project as a whole is worth continuing.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of something else we've come to take for granted recently. What was it called again?
Dan, I cannot applaud you enough for writing this. You give eloquent expression to my own gratitude for Wikipedia and its *daily* presence in my life. As a writer, and simply a citizen of the world interested in learning, I turn to it constantly to learn and be informed. It’s why I’ve also chosen for years to be one of its many financial contributors. I contribute because Wikipedia gives me hope for mankind. It gives me heart. Thank you again, Dan.
I’m a retired librarian and wiki user since the 1990’s. It is and always has been a gift which overlaps with the credo of public librarianship. I’m proud to support them. These days I often reflect that of all the techbros, Wikipedia is the only one that didn’t be(come) evil.
I am not a prolific Wikipedia editor, but I have enough experience that it informs some of the big issues. First, if you want to teach a young adult to read and write, Wikipedia is a great exercise. I wish this had been available to me when I was young. The policies enforce a discipline which are a necessary condition for every kind of writing: faithfully read the text and rewrite the content in your own words. I hope I am not confessing to stupidity here, but this was hard for me to learn.
The strength of Wikipedia has little to do with trust and truth. Reliability is the highest achievable standard given the plethora of volunteer and often anonymous content creators. The credibility of the editor is irrelevant, as it should be. Every valid Wikipedia edit is merely a rewording from a reliable source. When editing does not meet that standard, it's junk. So an enormous reform effort is incremental; that is, it consists of editors citing sources and re-writing content to make it consistent with a reliable source. That does not make it true, but it does direct readers to sources so that they are in a better position to evaluate its truthfulness.
like a voice in the wilderness. now I can entertain the pleasant thought that I have voices in my head, after all these years :)
thanks for doing what you do to uphold the spirit of us all.
Thought provoking piece, Dan. All I do with Wikipedia is read it a lot, and make occasional financial contributions - and I feel better about both, having read your post.
Excellent detailed piece
Great explanation for the viability of Wikipedia on its birthday. It has certainly been a godsend in my life for getting important, and sometimes, not so important, as in trivial, info when I needed it, during the last 25 years.
However, being the Pollyanna that I am, I like to think that if Jimmy Wales got hit by a bus, (or jumped into the river at Bedford Falls), somebody else would have come along to create Wikipedia or similar. It developed to meet a need; the necessity of providing a rapidly and instantly connected world that was waking up and demanding to have more and more info about itself. ❤️🇨🇦
Very well thought through Mr Gardner. It's rare that I fully agreecwith anyone, I am a bit of a grouch. But you are totally right here. Nice work. I hope it is widely shared.
Wow! I am convinced. Thank you for sharing this perspective on Wikipedia. It gives me hope!
Dan
I think you need to make a list of good big things on the internet- there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv?wprov=sfti1#. Then there’s the Linux os, and tens of thousands of many years of software available for anyone for free.
Wikipedia is great but is not the only good thing.
I take your point -- there's lots that good on the Internet -- but I think you miss mine: None is a giant on the scale of Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. Except Wikipedia.
It would be very interesting to know the scale of the various web entities that are in some form public knowledge repositories.
This confusion between operations and editorial mimics the eternal fight over the CBC in Ottawa. We see it in Hansard records constantly. The government sends over $1 billion to the broadcaster annually. The law says politicians cannot touch the newsrooms. But the money link creates a perception of bias that no law can fix. Your idea to move Wikimedia to Switzerland is smart. Physical distance is often the only way to prove you are truly independent.
Thanks for the article. I learned a lot about a service I use a lot and now appreciate a whole lot more.
Terrific piece, I found myself agreeing with virtually everything.(Rare for me!) Thanks
This is a well argued piece.
I don’t think there is evidence of “systemic bias” throughout English Wikipedia. And the X-crowd hand-wringing about the site as a whole is misplaced, if their position was some version of “you can’t trust anything on wiki”.
OTOH, it’s a different accusation if the contention is directional bias on contentious issues. That might be considered “anecdote” as a reflection of the entire project, but may amount to something more substantial with regards to the specific topic of discussion.
And anecdotes of hyper-partisan editors who are incredibly active within very specific domains (as demonstrated by Woodgrains) would seem to lend credence to that POV. It doesn’t impugn the whole project of 7 million articles, but it should trigger some caveat emptor around some hot-button stuff.
(Edit: btw, here is another “anecdote” by Woodgrains…)
https://open.substack.com/pub/tracingwoodgrains/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashes-mao?r=pbogx&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
I'm old enough to remember that Microsoft tried to make and sell a product equivalent to a software version of an Encyclopedia. I don't remember the name.
I do remember that an argument was 'would you fly in an airplane built by random volunteers.'
I'm glad Wikipedia won.
Encarta. Yes, people forget but Wikipedia was a ridiculous idea that couldn't possibly work. Then it did.
Microsoft executives, including one Bill Gates, said a lot of things in the 1990s that have not aged well.
Disclaimer, I'm a long-time critic of Wikipedia. I hope I'm a "thoughtful" one, but never mind. And I don't want to spend all day writing a critique which will have no effect, so grant me some charity to hit some high points, and be blunt.
If you have never tried to edit a controversial Wikipedia article, you have no idea of the insanity behind the facade. Sorry, it's disqualifying in my view. It's something that needs to be experienced directly and personally. And of course, to some Wikipedia-boosters, that then invalidates the critic - which is part of the point of the criticism.
"However energetic this one editor is, however bad his efforts may be, he is the equivalent of a vandal spray-painting graffiti on the side of a battleship." - NO! THIS IS FALSE! He was not an aberration, but a very high-ranking, extremely well-protected and senior member. He regularly abused his position to harass people, and got away with it. The relevant analogy is much more akin to the corrupt officials in Trump's administration, not "one bad apple".
"Let's make Wikipedia better.". That can't be done. The entire structure of it is designed to reward petty power-tripping and worse. Again, are you going to try to make the Trump administration better?
Moreover, you're making what I call the "cockroach" argument. That is, if you dine at a restaurant, and you find a big cockroach in your food, it's not a good defense for the owner to say: "But that's only one cockroach - you don't see any other cockroaches, do you? In fact, let's not blow this out of proportion. We have to keep it in perspective. The rest of these meals, without cockroachs that you can see, are pretty good, aren't they?". To be clear, the idea is if you see one big cockroach in your food, there's probably a horde of others around somewhere.
Eh, this is long enough. You may mean well, but you're still working too much from the PR of Wikipedia, and not enough from the analysis that the serious critics have done (which I'll grant is sometimes lost in the culture war).
Thanks for referring to Wales as "co-founder" here though. It's the right thing to do.
On editing: I've spoken to lots and lots and lots of people who have edited, including going out of my way to find people frustrated by the process. In other words, I did journalism the way journalism is always done. If you think that's disqualifying, your beef is with journalism, not me. (And I think you're wrong.)
As to much that follows, even if I grant you all you say is perfect reflection of reality, why does that lead it "it can't be improved?" I don't get it.
On cockroaches: Public health regulations typically allow some level of contamination or whatever because perfection is impossible in human affairs. And if that were the standard, not only would all the restaurants be closed, so would all the food production. And we'd be dead. I'm pro staying alive. Controversial, I know, but there it is.
Re: the "co-founder" thing. I thought about including something about that little controversy but forgot. I know people love to obsess over such things. Writing historian, particularly technology history, I encounter heaps of that sort of "controversy." I think it's silly, in general, and it's particularly silly here -- because Wikipedia wasn't created by Jimmy Wales and/or Larry Sanger, it was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and dozens and dozens of others who were in at the beginning. And even more to the point: the beginning was just the beginning. The real answer to the question, "who founded Wikipedia" is "millions of people." So, sorry, I just don't care about that label one way or the other.
"If One Person Says It's Raining and Another Says It's Not Raining Then the Journalist Should Look Out the Window and Report the Truth"
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/11/14/rain-look/
[look out the window == try editing controversial articles]
It can't be improved because the very structure of Wikipedia denigrates expertise in a topic. That's directly what goes wrong in one of your proposals. The joking way of describing this is Wikipedia's unofficial motto is "experts are scum". That anti-expert aspect is intrinsic to how it works. This is a long-time critic point which doesn't seem to ever get through.
I most strongly disagree with your characterization about "silly". It's matter of someone much more powerful taking away deserved credit from someone much less powerful. Another part of journalism is "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." (not the reverse!)
On the old saying: There's only one weather outside. If you go and look, that's it. What you are describing is not that, which is perfectly obvious if you imagine me saying, "I tried editing and it was easy therefore the complaints are false." I cannot believe you are arguing that that is a serious diagnostic!
And I really, really don't want to engage the "founder" debate. Which, yes, I think is silly. Why? Because it's the title isn't defined and the criteria aren't defined so it's a completely subjective judgement. In other words, two perfectly reasonable, fair-minded people, may investigate the facts and come to opposite conclusions, and there's no way to decide who's right (provided neither has made factual errors). In other other words, there's a case to be made for co-founder, there's a case to be made for founder, and reasonable people can and will differ. And... it doesn't matter. Neither of them built Wikipedia. Millions did.
As I said, I'm just hitting the high points, apply charity, PLEASE.
Forget it. I give up. I have nothing to gain from this, and I can indeed lose.
I appreciate the pushback. You’re always substantive. I wish everyone were..
I am not a fan of how some of the money is spent (financing the lifestyles of some of the Valley elite, for example, is not high on my priority list). But I recognise that nothing is perfect and the whole thing, and the whole thing's independence, are of such value to humanity that I keep supporting it with my money as well as some of my time.
You can take issue with aspects of how anything is run and still have faith that they are worth trying to fix and that the project as a whole is worth continuing.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of something else we've come to take for granted recently. What was it called again?
Oh, right: democracy.