Wikipedia endorses user-generated content in which publications are reviewed and cleared by peers instead of by expert authority. This means anyone can publish an encyclopedia article if enough people affirm its validity. Wikipedia’s leviathan, however, ensures some level of quality by requiring that contributions be verifiable by legitimate publications. Users can achieve various levels of authority by gaining the trust of the Wikipedia community over time, eventually becoming a part of this leviathan. They may be awarded the statuses of “steward” “bureaucrat” or “administrator”. Administrators have the most privileges and are able to delete content, prevent changes in articles, and discourage users from further editing.
Since the online social norm is to strive for accurate content, online offenses on Wikipedia include vandalism (adding false or unconfirmed content), poor quality, bias, and contradictory information. Contributing users are informed of such a norm through a “sign on the door” tactic in which users are notified of the terms of use before editing. Therefore, abnormal behavior is reproached by the leviathan in that if users don’t adhere to these standards, editors can delete pages and block users from providing content. For example, after Stephen Colbert tried to demonstrate his point that Wikipedia is mere “truthiness” by adding false statements about his show, administrators locked his account and prevented him from adding more fallacious content. To defend this action, Wikipedia cofounder Jim Wales explained, “We try as hard as we can to make sure every piece of information on the site is backed up by verifiable sources, and if something is under dispute, we remove it until people can provide us with sources” (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1537865/20060803/index.jhtml?headlines=true
).
Furthermore, anyone can attain editorial status, and thus the leviathan is actually not one “mortal god,” as Wallace puts it, but a collaboration of all experienced users who tag questionable articles for review, report vandalization, and value the quality of posted content. Thus, the online encyclopedia will not fall apart if this “mortal god” goes away, but rather has many layers of defense: it will take more than one malignant contributor to wreak chaos by changing “facts” and the perceptions of those users who rely on them.
Wikipedia is also experimenting with creating “stable versions” of web pages in which reviewed articles are locked from further editing.
So while Wikipedia may not be a reliable citation in a research paper, due to its collaborative leviathan, it isn’t completely unreliable, or as Colbert mockingly put it, “Wikiality: a reality we can all agree on.”
____________________________________________________________________
Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-big-brother-google.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-parental-controls-pre-mtv-style.html
3 comments:
Hi Christina,
I enjoyed reading your post. I think many critics write Wikipedia off as the product of disorganized laymen without a real stake in the quality of their articles. The influence of the leviathan helps illustrate why that assumption is misguided. The combination of the editorial hierarchy and the ability of administrators to ban deviant users ensures that few successfully undermine Wikipedia’s attempts at accuracy. I think it’s also worth noting that Wikipedia users post articles willingly, with no anticipation of tangible rewards. Since they have to be getting something out of it, I think it’s safe to assume that conforming to the standards of the database and earning the respect of other users in this group is reward in itself.
Great post Christina! It's really important that Wikipedia is monitored now that anyone can contribute to a page at any time. I remember I tried putting up false information on a partiular page, and the administrators were very quick about editing this and informing me by identifying my ISP.
Do you think that if the "offenders" were not notified, or if these pages on Wikipedia were efficiently monitored, people would remain truthful? I feel that people, through social norms (outside the internet), would want to sincerely contribute their knowledge to others. However, the Internet also has it's downside due to anonymity issues...
This was a really great post Christina. Wikipedia is definitely something that everyone has had a connection with at some point in time so it's easy to understand. All of us have met people who completely discredit Wikipedia since "just any random person" can post on it, but because of the Leviathan, it actually works out. So many people enjoy the convenience and information Wikipedia provides that they will go to great lengths to protect it. Not only do the administrators enforce the norms, but everyday users like me can act as the Leviathan as well. I feel at this point, even if all the administrators decided to leave, Wikipedia would still be maintained at a decent level because of the strong community it has created.
Post a Comment