How To Split An Atom

Get more articles like this and Register for our Forum.

Let me tell you a little story about an encyclopedia named Wikipedia that once had the vaulted goal of setting a right to a wrong. You see, Wikipedia saw that professionally edited encyclopedias moved slowly, ponderously in fact.

Not only that but they often ignored that knowledge belonged to people. So it gave the public the keys to the temple and said, “Have at it.”

That seems like a long time ago. These days, Wikipedia looks less like an object lesson in the power of public trust than a sad example of what happens when the forest is completely decoupled from the trees.

George Orwell Hated Esperanto

In this latest case Wikipedia’s ruling caste of high-powered editors are being charged with maintaining a mailing list that they use for the express purpose of identifying and banning anyone who disagrees with the Wiki model. Unfortunately, like most witch hunts, lists like this tend to draw more false positives than anything else.

For example, the case of Wiki editor “!!” (Bang Bang) who was banned after another editor, Durova, decided that Mr. Bang’s months of good service to the encyclopedia had to be a front to gain good favor with the community so that he could launch an attack. Of course, she reasoned, anyone who would go through the trouble of editing all those pages had to be acting as an agent for “the enemy.” The enemy, in this case personified by organizations like Wikipedia Review, a forum that takes exception to some of Wikipedia’s editing practices.

As it turns out, after being burned banned it was discovered that !! was actually a pseudonym for a long time editor who had changed his name due to privacy concerns on his old account.

Crimethink

If this was the only case of Wikipedia editors overstepping the bounds of common logic it wouldn’t be such a huge deal. The problem is that some powerful members of the Wikipedia community have lost track of what it is that they are actually trying to accomplish.

Wikipedia only works when the editors realize that their job is curate not to crush.

Yes, spam exists and there is an entire world of people out there trying to game the system. However, what’s the point of a publicly edited encyclopedia when the public can’t edit it?

Instead of trying to strangle any and all cords of dissent by launching witch hunts, a site like Wikipedia should understand that necessity for true open debate. Hiding behind souped up accounts and editorial powers goes completely against the theory that Wikipedia built its brand on. And we all know that if you push against your brand long enough, nothing good will come of it.

Web 2.0 Roundup

Wikipedia is far from dead, but situations like this are early signs of a growing disease. I hope that someone out there is paying attention and realizes that the focus of Wikipedia should be to harvest knowledge and sometimes that means taking a gentler had with this people who are taking the time to produce it. What do you think?

[Be sure to subscribe to the RSS feed before leaving. Photo Credit]