In defence of academic alteration (i.e. vandalism)

I wholeheartedly agree with Michelle when she says “without the interventions of hackers (like Thor's students)--the content [of Wikipedia] would be surprisingly reliable; […] for some pages, Wikipedia contributors can do a better job than […] a more "expert" staff.” The idea of an online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute is what makes Wikipedia a wonderful database of pop-culture knowledge. When was Tony Danza born? What is the name of the third track from the newest Beastie Boys album? Who the hell is that woman from the Tic Tac commercials? For the most part these articles are probably fairly accurate, and if they aren’t…well, nobody is going to lose any sleep over them (except maybe Tony Danza).

As Michelle said, it is probably mostly vandals who are responsible for the unreliability of Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia has, to some degree, a decent system of checks and balances in place—if you post something outrageously falsified it is likely going to be deleted. Now, maybe I’m just being cynical, but I think the most problematic aspect of Wikipedia is its desire for accuracy—these checks and balances which attempt to keep Wikipedia clean are the very things which invite vandalism. People know that the fact-checkers at Wikipedia are limited in their knowledge and that they can’t catch every little thing, so people try to see what they can get away with. To relate this to a Seinfeld episode (as is possible with any situation in life), Jerry tried to beat the polygraph test because there was a chance he could avoid revealing his penchant for Melrose Place.

What happens, then, when we have a website like Scholarpedia which restricts who can write articles? Higher accuracy, yes, but it also perpetuates the elitism of the academic community. I realize that Scholarpedia is just beginning, and that these things take time to build, but somehow I doubt (judging by the current, narrow range of existing articles: from Bogdanov-Takens Bifurcation to the FitzHugh-Nagumo Model) that Scholarpedia will ever have an article on Justin Timberlake. The whole reason Wikipedia was developed in the first place was a reaction against this elitism. While Scholarpedia might be helpful to academia, the average Joe will have no reason to check it out or even to know of its existence. Thus, Scholarpedia’s comparison of themselves to Wikipedia (see the main page) is irrelevant. The two websites are not even in the same ballpark—they have different purposes, different audiences, and different content. Furthermore, the direct comparison to Wikipedia, which reads as condescending and spiteful, just pushes Scholarpedia further into the realm of academic snobbery.

Taken to the other extreme, what happens when we have a website with no checks and balances? Take, for example, the website inspired by Stephen Colbert’s numerous rants on the “truthiness” (i.e. the unreliability) of Wikipedia: Wikiality. The website, although very significant in a cultural sense, has zero academic consequence. But the interesting thing about Wikiality is that the articles are all very consistent—surprisingly more so than even the semi-policed Wikipedia. Despite the fact that the site is developed and maintained by fans of Colbert, and has practically no regulation or quality control, it is difficult to find an article, or even a small piece of an article, on Wikiality that is not aligned with the views and beliefs of Stephen Colbert’s character. Once in a while you might find an angry Christian or an irate Republican who, tired of Colbert’s satire, decides to vandalize an article, but these angry comments are often kept on the page and, once a little new material is added, they only fuel the satire (see this section on “The Baby Jesus”). What Wikiality shows us is that as long as the contributors are all working along the same ideological lines consistency is not a problem.

In conclusion:
Wikipedia = the working-class peon who is allowed to make a few mistakes as long as he doesn’t anger the academics
Scholarpedia = the stuffy PhD who has no time for the peon’s concerns
Wikiality = the stupid, biased uncle who doesn’t really care about anything

Ultimate conclusion:
Go to the library and do the research yourself.

Ultimate ultimate conclusion:
Without Wikipedia we would have no links to add to blog posts.