Will a Lack of Editors Affect Wikipedia Accuracy?
Popularity and Inaccuracy Are A Dangerous Combo14 comments Saturday, December 5, 2009
Wikipedia is a very useful site for anyone looking to find information on any given topic. Chances are that you have used it for research at one time or another. Even if you don't start by going directly to Wikipedia, results from the site are often at the top of search results in Google, and you'll get there anyway.
Those Google results likely play a significant role, but Wikipedia's popularity is as great as ever. Right now, it is cited as the fifth most popular site in the entire world. It gets 325 million monthly visitors, and the number of visitors grew 20% in the 12 months ending in September, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing data from comScore.
The WSJ also says that the number of editors Wikipedia has is dwindling. They say that Wikipedia lost over 49,000 editors in the first three months of 2009 alone. During the same period the previous year, Wikipedia lost only 4,900 (WSJ attributes these figures to Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega. His thesis on the subject can be found here [pdf]).
The accuracy of information on Wikipedia has always been something to be leery of, simply because of the open format of it. If you give the public access to things, some people will abuse it. Even if their intentions aren't bad, they may still just post inaccurate information. Wikipedia's has taken measures over time to try and weed out the bad, by making stricter policies for content addition. These days, altering or contributing to Wikipedia content is no easy feat.

With such a drastic loss in editors, one has to wonder if accuracy of information will suffer. Will there continue to be enough people to keep Wikipedia updated with accurate information across the board?
"We need sufficient people to do the work that needs to be done," says Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia foundation is quoted as saying. "But the purpose of the project is not participation."
It is the implementation of Wikipedia's measures for cleaning up the site that is the focus of many people's speculation on why it is losing so many editors. Basically, it's just become too strict. However, there are also suggestions that Wikipedia is simply getting full, content wise - there is a lack of new topics that require entries.
There's no question that there are entries out there yet to be created, and a whole lot more that could use additional information added to them, but are the right people available to add that information? Are the right people granted access to do so?
Let's hope that Wikipedia is able to maintain the highest level of accuracy possible, moving into the future. It needs to continue to improve, not get worse. It's a useful resource, despite its flaws, and the world knows it - hence the site's enormous popularity. If accuracy becomes more of a problem, it could have a harmful impact on what is perceived to be knowledge in general. People taking inaccurate information for fact can be a dangerous thing.
Related Articles:
> Wikipedia to Start Coloring Trust
> Wikimedia Reels In $500,000 Grant
> Wikipedia to Go Creative Commons
Wikipedia puts ideology ahead of the facts
I am writing a book that will have a chapter devoted to Wikipedia. I have spent hundreds of hours doing research on the accuracy and NPV (neutral point of view) policy that Wikipedia states is a requirement of their articles. The results of my research make me very concerned that students at all levels use Wikipedia to research any number of topics. Thousands of their articles give up factual information in favor of politically and socially biased information.
As I wrote in one article about Wikipedia, it is easy to see the inherent political bias that permeates Wikipedia. Compare articles about Barack Obama and George W Bush. The Bush article has a negative tone and points out any shortcomings or alleged controversies of his administration. The reader comes away with a decidedly negative impression. Contrast this with the article about Obama. That article glances over or ignores any controversial subjects or arrives at the conclusion that they are unfounded.
You will find the same results with articles about Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich or any other political figure. The conservatives and Republicans always have a negative tone and draw negative conclusions while the Democratic and liberal subjects are always heroes and can do no wrong. This is the message that kids get from Wikipedia along with anyone who mistakes this as a source of the facts; it isn't.
The same results can be found when researching social issues. The facts are tossed out the window when the subject would include a liberal and conservative viewpoint. On topics like welfare or abortion, the conclusions always favor the liberal point of view. Any notion that a neutral point of view exists on Wikipedia is a myth. It is biased from start to finish.
I would invite all readers, regardless of ideology to put my assertions to the test. The proof is in the pudding.
Publish A Comment
-
The Changing Search Landscape
"Every Monday, SEO is a new industry." Those are the words of long... -
3 Steps for Creating a Social Media Strategy
Social media is all about engaging with people whether it be clients,... -
Real-Time Opportunities for Marketers
The explosion of social media has given consumers a strong desire to... -
Why SEO Fundamentals Still Matter
Since SEO is constantly changing, how can SEOs determine the most...
Submit Your Article




























Wikipedia
Thanks for this informative piece - I've used Wikipedia alot, and am very grateful for it. Seeing requests to improve/check accuracy, I've felt mild twinges of guilt that I'm not offering to help...
Often, though, there is such a wealth of information in the referenced sources, in many of the articles I've read. A person can check them out, to verify info, if there is concern as to validity of facts.