By KATIE HAFNER (via nytimes.com)
Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Unless you want to edit the entries on Albert Einstein, human rights in China or Christina Aguilera.
Wikipedia's come-one, come-all invitation to write and edit
articles, and the surprisingly successful results, have captured the
public imagination. But it is not the experiment in freewheeling
collective creativity it might seem to be, because maintaining so much
openness inevitably involves some tradeoffs.
- Click here for the full story
At its core, Wikipedia is not just a reference work but also an
online community that has built itself a bureaucracy of sorts — one
that, in response to well-publicized problems with some entries, has
recently grown more elaborate. It has a clear power structure that
gives volunteer administrators the authority to exercise editorial
control, delete unsuitable articles and protect those that are
vulnerable to vandalism.
Those measures can put some entries outside of the "anyone can edit"
realm. The list changes rapidly, but as of yesterday, the entries for
Einstein and Ms. Aguilera were among 82 that administrators had
"protected" from all editing, mostly because of repeated vandalism or
disputes over what should be said. Another 179 entries — including
those for George W. Bush, Islam and Adolf Hitler — were "semi-protected," open to editing only by people who had been registered at the site for at least four days. (See a List of Protected Entries)
[...]
From the start, [Wikipedia founder Jimmy] Wales gave the site a clear mission: to offer
free knowledge to everybody on the planet. At the same time, he put in
place a set of rules and policies that he continues to promote, like
the need to present information with a neutral point of view.
The system seems to be working. Wikipedia is now the Web's
third-most-popular news and information source, beating the sites of
CNN and Yahoo News, according to Nielsen NetRatings.
The bulk of the writing and editing on Wikipedia is done by a
geographically diffuse group of 1,000 or so regulars, many of whom are
administrators on the site.
"A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people, each
adding one sentence," Mr. Wales said. "But really the vast majority of
work is done by this small core community."
[...]
Mr. Wales calls vandalism to the encyclopedia "a minimal problem, a
dull roar in the background." Yet early this year, amid heightened
publicity about false information on the site, the community decided to
introduce semi-protection of some articles. The four-day waiting period
is meant to function something like the one imposed on gun buyers.
Once the assaults have died down, the semi-protected page is often reset to "anyone can edit" mode. An entry on Bill Gates
was semi-protected for just a few days in January, but some entries,
like the article on President Bush, stay that way indefinitely. Other
semi-protected subjects as of yesterday were Opus Dei, Tony Blair and sex.
To some critics, protection policies make a mockery of the "anyone can edit" notion.
"As Wikipedia has tried to improve its quality, it's beginning to
look more and more like an editorial structure," said Nicholas Carr, a
technology writer who recently criticized Wikipedia on his blog. "To
say that great work can be created by an army of amateurs with very
little control is a distortion of what Wikipedia really is."
But Mr. Wales dismissed such criticism, saying there had always been protections and filters on the site.
Wikipedia's defenders say it usually takes just a few days for all but the most determined vandals to retreat.
"A cooling-off period is a wonderful mediative technique," said Ross
Mayfield, chief executive of a company called Socialtext that is based
on the same editing technology that Wikipedia uses.
[...]