New Article - Is Wikipedia Corrupt?

[thejenn]

Authored by: Ross Dunn

Full Text: http://www.searchengineguide.com/dun.../0813_rd1.html

A Snippet:

My previous article about using Wikipedia ethically was based on an excellent article published at Search Engine Land called "SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider" written by a Wikipedia Administrator with the pseudonym Durova. Since my posting I received a few comments on the posting that were obviously from people who felt very strongly that Wikipedia, and in particular Durova, had serious issues with ethics.

[tgarns]

I'd agree that there is some corruption going on there.

A while back I attempted to post about a company I was working with. I basically copied the format of an existing company on Wikipedia. There was no promotional aspect of my posting - purely informational. The moderator took it down immediately.

[Cardfellow]

I posted an interesting read a few threads down that parallels this topic. The problem with Wikipedia, and any other user-contributed informational reference for that matter, is that it's subject to human nature which is often unfortunately selfish.

There's no system of checks and balances.

[Christian_SEO]

The term I used in the title of this post, "wicked", has two meanings that is perfect for the WP. While I love it as a resource for the most part and refer to it often, I can only imagine what it would be like if the site was monetized.

There is a dark side and I ran into it a couple of times. Despite it allowing "anyone" to contribute and edit pages, that's only true to the extent that the editors think it is. While I did add some low-key on-topic spam once or twice back in the early days, I understand the need to keep up the quality and did not presist in my self-serving additions.

But a few months ago I added a link (they use nofollow so the benefit to any site is limited) to a unique resource that was a search engine on a very specific topic and the only one available. My link was deleted and a nasty message left for me. This would not be so bad, except that the editor had a couple of links to HIS sites! Frankly, I didn't think much of his sites as resources. So from my perspective, yes, there is corruption and self-interest going on at least to some extent.

But even if you don't allow editors to list their own sites, you cannot stop people helping their friends or bribes being made. I have heard that DMOZ has some of the same problems and in that I think they are alike: Great resources flawed by human nature.

[Logan]

I agree regarding the parallels with dmoz, its human bias (which we all have) to me.

I posted an interesting read a few threads down that parallels this topic.

Here is that thread, thanks for sharing that Cardfellow - and welcome aboard

http://www.smallbusinessbrief.com/fo...ad.php?p=50248

[Jeremy]

Some people need to realize that Wikipedia is not a company or business. It's a large community contributing together. Wikipedians get no money and no benefits. Since this is a business forum, I can imagine a lot of people have tried to add an article for their own business and found that it doesn't work like that. But I think the main thing is that some people just aren't ready for this kind of website. Wikipedia is, in my opinion, the closest thing to unlimited knowledge. It helped me go from a B student to an A student (I'm still in school). Honestly, the good outweighs the bad by a lot.

I'd also like to point out some comments and things from this article or the last:

Answer: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a blog disguised as an encyclopedia, controlled by a limited number of people with admin tools who have particular axes to grind about living people with real names, all while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

This is clearly said by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I have no idea who said this, but it just doesn't make sense. A blog? A limited amount of people with admin tools? How could Wikipedia be/have either of these? Anyone is free to edit an article that hasn't been recently vandalized frequently. I don't understand how Wikipedia is anything like a blog. Do members posts articles about their daily going-ons and opinions? No, only facts are allowed.

PS) Google Needs More Diversity!
Google desperately needs to level the field a bit and offer up content from online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia (who regularly sits at #1 for most searches) to reveal some differing perspectives and soften Wikipedia's influence. After all, there are bound to be other online encyclopedias that deserve a shot at the limelight as well.

Ross said this because he got worked up about bashing Wikipedia. There's a good reason why Wikipedia articles are at the top. The information is helpful. Why should Google reward less helpful websites?

[Trainer Bubble]

I'm glad that you found Wikipedia useful for helping you through college Jeremy. However, I would have to argue that a lot of the information provided on their site (mainly because it is editable by everyone) is not wholly correct and certainly does not provide a balanced view of the topic.

I have friends who are studying (in the UK) and they are told very clearly that they should not use Wikipedia as a resource to assist them with their study as you cannot be sure of the 'facts' in the content.

You could argue the same for published books though I guess, as no matter what is written it will always be biased by the author. The trouble to my mind with Wikipedia though is that it is biased by so many different people and as mentioned before, if something is published that doesn't sit with the editors viewpoint, it won't be left on there for long.

I suspect Wikipedia does well in google rankings because of the amount of content rather than the quality of content. This is not something google can be held accountable for as their algorithms will find what they deem to be the most useful content for the keywords and as such Wikipedia will always come up high on the list.

Your point about Wikipedia not being a large company, but a community is moot. I don't think anyone is arguing that. However, what is being suggested is that the community is influencing people towards businesses and companies at the editors discretion.

Perhaps it is because you are in the world of academia that you can only see the benefits of the site. Indeed it can be a valuable site for research. If you are in business and the information is unfairly biased against your company though, your viewpoint would have to change.

[Crimson Fox]

I find with wikipedia, the most active users become the most influential.

You can post anything on wikipedia, but if someone is paying attention they can knock it off the page by disputing it.

Its like a game of tennis. Being won by the most passionate.

It's a great resource. But you can't beleive everything you read. Make sure you check and so called 'facts' off the site.

[Renaissance1]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Some people need to realize that Wikipedia is not a company or business.

Some people need to realize that being a charity isn't an excuse for not behaving with moral responsibility to society, which comprises individuals and businesses.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

It's a large community contributing together.

Which isn't the point. We are concerned about inappropriate conduct, not your identity.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Wikipedians get no money and no benefits.

Which is their own choice, and still not an excuse for allowing private persons or businesses to be damaged.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Since this is a business forum, I can imagine a lot of people have tried to add an article for their own business and found that it doesn't work like that.

Thank you. We can likewise take offense at the fact that you've dismissed valid concerns as sore-loser complaints.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

But I think the main thing is that some people just aren't ready for this kind of website.

I beg to differ. I think that most of us would welcome a great encyclopedia, if the effects on private persons and businesses were not so often carelessly damaging.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Wikipedia is, in my opinion, the closest thing to unlimited knowledge.

Oh my.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

It helped me go from a B student to an A student (I'm still in school).

Unless the proximity of the encyclopedia to your head caused an osmosis effect that resulted in higher test scores and better written papers, I beg to differ. Your increased interest in study was probably enhanced by a realization that learning matters, and that knowing things matters. While that's great, the same realization could have taken place in another intellectual forum, such as a real job, or in a debating society, or by participating in any form of intellectually challenging activity, where you were exposed to brighter and more educated persons. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia didn't do that, but the social networking apect of Wikipedia did. (Bite my tougue, a principal tenet of Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Except for the fact that it is).

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Honestly, the good outweighs the bad by a lot.

Honestly, Jeremy, you expect people to accept abuses of persons and businesses, and inconsistent application of rules, just because [[WP:I LIKE IT]]? Well, no.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

This is clearly said by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I have no idea who said this, but it just doesn't make sense. A blog?

Yes, most Wikipedians communicate on their User talk pages in blog-like fashion, and those talk pages receive the same Google-ranking as does a Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein. Which means that any vague gossip on Wikipedia is elevated in terms of intenet power. So Wikipeida is not only very much of a blog (and a social networking site) but it has the potential to leverage facts and rumor due to the level of power imbued in the site.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

A limited amount of people with admin tools? How could Wikipedia be/have either of these? Anyone is free to edit an article that hasn't been recently vandalized frequently.

Well, yes, there are a select few admins, and since the Essjay debacle, administrator misconduct has been given serious attention. As for who gets to edit an article, if you look back at the origin of this discussion, Ms. Durova was providing advisory to small businesses (or any entity, including an individual) to ask Wikipedia administrators for assisting them in correcting error on pages pertaining to them. Per Wikipedia rules, to edit a page pertaining to you is against the rules, and per Ms. Durova, that constitutes unethical behavior. Many people complained that Ms. Durova is unethical in the real sense.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

don't understand how Wikipedia is anything like a blog. Do members posts articles about their daily going-ons and opinions? No, only facts are allowed.

Opinions are not only written at will by Wikipedians on their talk pages, as gossip, but also in the process of "finding consensus" in the context of all community decision making. Many AFDs (Article for Deletion discussions), Deletion Reviews (2nd stage AFDs, on an appeal-like debate procedure), as well as RFAs (Discussions about whether an editor should be made an administrator - request for administratorship) and RFCs (request for coment - an invitation for Wikipedians to make comment on the behavior of an editor or administrator) take place, all of which contain all kinds of opinions, some of them unkind, or even very embarassing, or damaging. So the very discussant nature of Wikipedia consensus building (in addition to the inevitable talk page gossip) creates risk of defamation or libel. Really, they should un-google-index the talk pages. It would save a lot of problems.

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ross said this because he got worked up about bashing Wikipedia.

It is unfortunate, Jeremy, that you take what is actual concerns about Mr. Dunn, and others, as 'bashing' and that you fail to see that Wikipedia has a responsibility not only to its insular world (i.e. the "community") but to society at large. That's why they are a charity, and why they don't have to pay tax: Wikipedia, being a chairity, functions without the objective of profit-obtention, but to provide socially beneficial outcomes to society at large (including private persons and businesses).

Originally Posted by Jeremy

There's a good reason why Wikipedia articles are at the top. The information is helpful. Why should Google reward less helpful websites?

In fact, Google rankings are algorithmically based (rather than being subjectively favored, as you suggested). One of the most important criteria used in the Google algorithm for rank determination is the number of websites which point to your site. So if your site is full of garbage, but has thousands of sites pointing at it, it will get a high Google ranking. If there are many links pointing to Wikipedia, then all Wikipedia articles will raise in Google ranking, regardless of content.

As well, Wikipedia's high Google rank status isn't an accident. For the past year, Wikipedia has practiced a "no follow" policy, which has cut off most links "out" of Wikipedia, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of rank-inflating links "in" to Wikipedia. So Wikipedia absorbs all the rank-enhancing links in, while cutting off the payback out that it otherwise might give to other sites. This serves to artificially inflate Wikipedia's power, or ranking, on the internet. Which (if you go back to an earlier point) since gossip or random opinions made in the context of consensus seeking get equal elevation to the encyclopedia articles, means that Wikipedia has the potential to wreck some serious damage on the internet, if it is not careful.

And it is not careful. There is no program to train the mostly-young (average age 16-17) people who administrate Wikipedia, many of whom have never held a paying job, where they really would receive such training. Wikipedia is their first job, and they have been served up a huge dose of power, with no real guidelines for moral responsibility. And the culture of Wikipedia adminship is one of entitlement, of being above all criticism, and of legal invulnerablity. The latter point is inaccurate - Wikipedia editors can be sued, as per the Fuzzy Zoeller case. It simply doesn't happen very often, (possibly because suing a 16 year old would seem rather pointless)

I'm sorry Jeremy, that you view anyone who holds up a light to Wikipedia for an honest analysis to be a 'basher'. That assumption, simply doesn't hold true. Some people care about the common good, and that good extends to innocent third parties, being private persons and private businesses. If Wikipedia was an encyclopedia which practiced what it preached in that regard (because that precept is buried in in the Wikipedia founding rhetoric) then we would all most certainly be ready for such an encyclopedia. At present, all I can respond to most of your dismissive comments is that "just because Wikipedia is not a private business itself, does not give it a right or licence to damage private businesses".

I think what we are all ready for is a more professional-behaving and truely morally responsible Wikipedia, which is able to hold itself accountable, to provide a more conscious and careful treatment of consumers, private businesses, and society at large.

[augustcar]

For its claims of neutrality, Wikipedia is painfully easy for admins to abuse. Here's an example of a top administrator Slimvirgin flat out encouraging other users to abuse the system:

animalrights.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3075391

If you don't already help out at Wikipedia that's a great place to meet up. We have controlled animal rights articles there for several years, but the project is always expanding and we always need people to make sure new peripheral articles are slanted our way.

If you come over, just start commenting on any animal rights article and we will gladly recognize an ally. Branch out, contribute to a few unrelated topics, make a few spelling corrections, participate in the community discussions and when you have 1,000 edits or more, one of us will nominate you for administrator. That's where the real fun starts. We routinely block anyone who could pose a serious challenge to our control of animal rights articles. Once you're an admin, we'll sign you onto our list and give you the inside scoop on our latest campaigns.

Wikipedia -- we own it!!!

Talk about a conflict of interest... If Wikipedia wants to keep its credibility, they'd be wise to spend more time policing their admins.