Wiki bashing - and look who threw the stone...

In case you wonder what this is about, just go to Google news, type Wikipedia and read some of the stories.

So this guy discovered his Wikipedia biografic article contained false (and offending) information, and decided its 'character assassination' which prives Wikipedia (or at least universe in general :>) is populated with 'populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects'.

Well, my first impression is - so what? Wikipedia has many errors. Nobody is denying this. In fact, we have a disclaimer, accessible from any page (look at the very, very bottom) which sais in the huge letters: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

By our very nature, we cannot make such guarantees. Still, it seems like the press is having a field day discovering America. Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar. A Wicked-pedia. And so on. Well, I wonder if they know that our disclaimer is no different from that of other encyclopedias or newsite:

• The britannica.com disclaimer (from the site hosting the Encyclopedia Britannica Online):

  "YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."

• The MSN.com disclaimer (from the site hosting Microsoft's Encarta Encyclopedia)

  "...AND THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU."

• The bartleby.com disclaimer (from the site hosting the Columbia Encyclopedia)

  "YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."

  New York Times (disclaimer) "Neither NYTD nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk."

  CNN (disclaimer) "SUBSCRIBER EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT USE OF CNN INTERACTIVE IS AT SUBSCRIBER'S SOLE RISK. NEITHER CNN, ITS AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT CNN INTERACTIVE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF CNN INTERACTIVE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR CONTENT OF ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH CNN INTERACTIVE.

And similar. Yet once they fact is printed in their services, it's very hard to correct it. In print it's impossible. Online - you have to write a letter to the editor and hope they read it. But on Wiki you can simply correct the error by rewriting the page in one minute. This is why we have a page on errors in Britannica. They still haven't fixed some. Honestly, if a 12-year old can find errors in Britannica, can you honestly say it's a more trusted resource then Wiki? Sure, Britannica is peer reviewed, CNN or NYT employ professional journalists. So what? Many more professionals come to Wikipedia and write/correct relevant articles in their spare time.

It's promising that after a series of 'Wikipedia is evil' articles the journals, having apparently gotten their share of blood, are now taking a much more reasonable tone. And if some misguided souls, like the NYT staff, are now forbidden from using Wikipedia - well, pity them. The world is moving forward, whether all of their policy making guys understand it or not. They will have to retract this ban, if not tommorow, then in few weeks or months, as they came to understand what Wiki is (and see that everybody is doing it anyway).

Nonetheless this whole affair has some positive results. First, Wikipedia has finally put some restriction on anon users - they cannot create pages (they can still edit at will though). Since pages can be deleted only by admins, it is a good move, restoring some balance and making admin workload smaller. If you want to create a new article, really, is 15-second register process too much for you? Maybe - if you want to spam Wiki with a hundred pages about 'X sucks' :> Second, you know the saying about thriving on controversy. Wikipedia has now breached the Top 30 most popular Alexa ranking, and number of registering editors per day has more then doubled since last week :) Keep those controversies coming - more eyeballs for Wiki is just what we need.