Internet Reliability: How Wikipedia is Trying to Become the Most Reliable Website on the Internet

Wikipedia is, by its own words, is a “multilingual, web-based encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.” Wikipedia’s influence is becoming greater and greater, as almost any search you do on Google, Ask, MSN or any other website invariably returns articles from their encyclopedia near the top of the list. They currently make the claim of having 9.1 million articles in an astounding 252 languages. The very idea and meaning of the word “wiki” is that it is a program that allows users to easily update and edit parts of the program. Therefore, Wikipedia, by its very name is the encyclopedia that can be easily edited and changed by almost any user.

The results of this are twofold. This approach is what makes Wikipedia so powerful, influential, and large in scope. However, it also leads to potential issues of reliability of information. Our childhood lessons tell us that everyone has a right to their opinion and that no one’s opinion is better than anyone else’s, but the reality of the fact is that opinions aren’t what a person is looking for when looking in an encyclopedia. Facts are. So the real issues are: When you create an encyclopedia that is of the scope and importance of Wikipedia, how do you ensure that the information is reliable, how do you decide what information is relevant and important enough to be listed as fact, and how do you ensure that the system isn’t compromised by the very thing that makes it great?

Wikipedia has loads of information on their website discussing how they attempt to keep the overall quality of their articles as high as possible, but in order to gain a greater perspective of how Wikipedia operates and what measures they have in place to ensure the highest quality possible, I came in contact with Daniel Bryant, a volunteer who was willing to generously dedicate some of his time to answer questions.

Matt Talken: What measures are taken to ensure reliability and accuracy on your articles?

Daniel Bryant: Wikipedia is only as reliable as the external sources on which it relies. Fortunately, Wikipedia is very regular about citing its sources (far more regular than many other publications). If an article does not provide citations, then it may or may not be reliable and a reader should use their own judgment. Students should never use information in Wikipedia for formal purposes (such as school essays) until they have verified and evaluated the information based on external sources. To enforce this requirement, one of our three core content policies is about verifiability, seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>. The premise of this is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth and that editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is a work in progress, some articles don't meet this requirement (in fact, many don't). For some that do, see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles>, which are considered Wikipedia's best work as vetted by the community through a nominations process


MT: How do you differentiate between accidental mistakes that people make when editing pages and intentional vandalism?

DB: We have people who are considered 'vandal-fighters', who patrol the list of recent changes seen at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges> and revert vandalism. There is some general crtieria for what is considered vandalism and what isn't, which can been at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>.However, the common sense application revolves around whether the edit was malicious and made in bad faith, or an accident made in good faith. Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith until/unless there is evidence to the contrary. That being said, edits which are not 'vandalism' but are also not 'helpful' are also reverted, however more courtesy and discussion are afforded to such situations.


MT: How often are articles being updated? Do WP employees check each and every one of these articles?

DB: Wikipedia has very few "employees" (estimating it'd be fewer than ten), but rather rely on volunteers like myself. I am unsure about statistics regarding the amount of updates being made, but to check the number of recent edits to any individual page click the 'history' tab at the top of it.


MT: What are the guidelines for whether a topic is important enough to warrant having a posting?

DB: Our primary notability criterion is the main bar for inclusion. It is viewable at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability>, and is often quoted as "[a] topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Our guidelines on what is a reliable source obviously plays a big part in this; it can be seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>.


MT: What are some of the most interesting examples of article vandalism that you've seen?

DB: You get your average inserts of four letter words up to entire spiels about totally random stuff, some of which makes me laugh. Some of the better ones are noted at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silly_Things>, although it may give students ideas :)


MT: Are there any new ideas/theories on how to help make wikipedia even more reliable? Anything that will be tested?

DB: The biggest and most notable proposal (which I discussed at length with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales when I met him on his Australia tour earlier this year) was <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions>. It's opposers say it inhibits the Wiki model of "being easy for pages to be created and updated", while supporters say that for Wikipedia to improve *quality* rather than *quantity* it needs to happen. My opinion is the latter, but at the moment it hasn't been implemented because there is no consensus amongst the community as to how it would work.

MT: Looking at the "flagged revisions" article, it sounds like a good idea in theory, but I want to make sure I understand what it means. Am I correct in understanding that if this were implemented, anyone could submit updates for a page, but they wouldn't necessarily just happen, but instead would be submitted to a group of people who would decide whether the changes would be made or not?

DB: Yes, your reading is perfectly right. Obviously the bone of contention is this deviates from the standard Wiki model, which is that anyone can edit (still remains) and the changes are immediate (no longer occurs).As the community could never reach a consensus about the above, it was never agreed upon who would be able to "approve" revisions. The proposed setup for rights was detailed at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Quality_versions#Reviewer_rights>.

MT: How do you deal with controversial issues? What safeguards do you have against issues becoming too incendiary?

DB: One of our three core policies is that all articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, seen at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>. This is non-negotiable with all articles. Furthermore, we have an even stronger guideline when dealing with biographies for people that are still living (or recently deceased), seen at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons>, as it is widely acknowledged that this area needs special attention and extra-strong provisions for removing poor information.


MT: A specific instance of the above question is involving the KKK page. What are your feelings on the fact that the KKK article on wikipedia links directly to the KKK's website? Is this responsible posting of information or could this be seen in some way as a validation of hateful messages?

DB: The content of Wikipedia pages, including external links, is determined entirely by our volunteers rather than any official editorial team. Links are generally reserved for sites that have significant content beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry, and should be limited to only a few per article. These are usually official or academic sites; other categories such as forums and personal fan sites are discouraged. In this case, consensus would probably exist for including the website in the external links (where Wikipedia consensus is how decisions are made). For what reason, I have no idea, although I do share some concerns. However, linking to external sites is not a form of validation of the messages portrayed there, especially in the case of linking to the official website of the subject of the article (in the case of the KKK). This is noted at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links>, I believe.


MT: An article I noticed recently with a neutrality dispute was the article on former Governor Zell Miller. There seems to be a long-standing dispute of its neutrality. The issues seem to be documented pretty well on why it was originally labeled as such, but I've got two questions about this: First—After years of rewriting, is there still really a dispute and what specifically can you point to if there is reason for a dispute? Second—Is there any behind-the-scenes information you can tell me about how these issues are dealt with, or is the documentation on the talk page pretty much it?

DB: Disputes are resolved via our dispute resolution processes, noted at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution>. It is not uncommon for disputes to take months to resolve, and in some cases never be resolved. Wikipedia is often considered a battleground (which we try to dissent from, see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND>), but in such cases people are often entrenched in their views and compromise becomes impossible. The Wiki model works on compromise, which is occasionally its' downfall.

MT: One other issue that came up in some of the links you’ve sent me is the idea of bots on wikipedia. One article on the site states: "Sysops are authorised to block unauthorised bots on sight. Spam bots should be treated equivalently as vandalbots." Are there bots that are authorised to make changes on wikipedia? If so, what exactly is the purpose of these bots?

DB: Yes, there are bots. They are approved for use by a small group of experienced users (I'm an inactive user of said group) after discussion. The < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy> page is helpful.They do all sorts of tasks which would be impossible, impractical or just plain annoying to do by hand. There's bots that revert blatant vandalism (eg. adding "fuck you" or similar, total blanking of pages), some which swap over templates which have been depreciated, and others which distribute newsletters and bulletins to those who have signed up for it. Bots can be flagged or not flagged - having a bot flagged means the bot won't show up in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges>, so flagging is used for uncontroversial and frequent edits, so that the recent changes page doesn't get clogged up.

MT: So these bots are basically doing a lot of the repair work that would otherwise take most of the users’ time to repair. As a followup on the question I asked earlier about dispute resolution and the Zell Miller article, how are these issues handled while they're being disputed? Is the article reverted back to its previous state before the dispute or is the disputed information allowed to stay out there until the dispute is cleared? It seems like if it's allowed to stay, this could be a loophole, allowing a person to get his or her own point of view out there for potentially an extended period of time, knowing it could take months for the dispute to be resolved. It seems kind of like the problem with ancient Greek democracy. It's great because everyone gets a voice, but nothing could ever get done potentially.

DB: In disputes, there is no hard-and-fast requirement for reverting the page back to the original version. With the exception of where defamatory/strongly negative material about a living person is concerned, an article is protected (locked from editing) on the version it is found on by an administrator if users are constantly reverting each other - this is commonly called an edit war: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war>Wikipedia disputes are resolved through consensus and negotiation. Although it is true everyone has a voice, if that voice is one against one hundred as a result of being unreasonable, patently false or whatever other reason), they won't make any headway - it's kind of an augmented form of natural justice. If both parties are being reasonable, they should work towards a mutually-acceptable compromise agreement through processes of negotiation, mediation and general discussion. We have appointed mediators (of which I am one of) who can assist if the two parties/sides can't negotiate effectively by themselves.



Mr. Bryant’s answer paint a picture of an encyclopedia editable by anyone that certainly has its problems, but the problems are ones that are being handled in a very efficient manner. Wikipedia does a lot with just a little. They have very few actual employees, but instead use volunteers who are willing to put a little time into the wikipedia concept to make it the best resource it can be. With the volunteer help they receive and the bots they use to fix simple vandalism issues, Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source on the internet yet, but it certainly has a model for success and it has a dedicated group of volunteers who work hard to make it as reliable as any “wiki” could possibly be.