Where’s my Wiki Pedigree?
If information is the reflection of a society that produces it, shouldn’t we spend some time gazing at the original? Apparently Wikipedia thinks so…now. The twists and gasps keep coming from Wikipedia, the world’s most famous online encyclopedia, oracle, and cyber soap opera.
Much like “Chad” in your generic soap being exposed as a fraud, a high-level wiki contributor, “Essjay”, was revealed to be a 24-year-old college dropout, instead of a theology professor. Apparently disposed to giving “expert” opinions on the subject, his credentials were allegedly vouched for by Wiki personnel to the New Yorker in 2006, despite the fact such personnel admitted to not knowing his true identity. Ryan Jordan, as Essjay is known to his carbon unit buddies, even held the rank of “arbitrator” a trusted inner position in the wiki organization that oversees disputes over veracity and the like. In fact Ryan was hired by Wikia, Inc., Jimmy Wales’ for profit venture, but later fired. As a result, Wikipedia is now undertaking a policy that will require contributors who claim expertise in a matter to identify themselves.
Although I may appear to be harsh on Wikipedia, I am cognizant of the extreme tension between two seemingly polar schools of thought—anonymity and pedigree. Anonymity is to a great extent what fuels Wiki’s charm—as a result, the site is truly astounding in breadth and depth. However, pedigree, meaning the ability to measure the contributor along professional/academic lines, though so 20th century, is still a valid and necessary concept. While I agree that you should not judge a book by its resume, it is still necessary to at least identify the resume. Hence, Wiki’s identity rule is a positive first step in bridging the gap between the two schools.
In a separate vein, WikiLeaks.org aims to crack the mirror by showing what lies behind it, albeit through anonymous whistleblowers. Designed to be absolutely anonymous in nature, it promotes the dissemination of clandestine political documents (think the Pentagon papers). As the site states:
“Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.”
Hmmm, is this LonelyGirl for regime change? Indeed some argue this is a CIA front, designed to manipulate its readers into adopting its political slant. For those of us that are less conspiracy minded it is a potent example of how anonymity can be a double-edged sword—protection for the oppressed, or in Ryan’s case a false pulpit.
Much like “Chad” in your generic soap being exposed as a fraud, a high-level wiki contributor, “Essjay”, was revealed to be a 24-year-old college dropout, instead of a theology professor. Apparently disposed to giving “expert” opinions on the subject, his credentials were allegedly vouched for by Wiki personnel to the New Yorker in 2006, despite the fact such personnel admitted to not knowing his true identity. Ryan Jordan, as Essjay is known to his carbon unit buddies, even held the rank of “arbitrator” a trusted inner position in the wiki organization that oversees disputes over veracity and the like. In fact Ryan was hired by Wikia, Inc., Jimmy Wales’ for profit venture, but later fired. As a result, Wikipedia is now undertaking a policy that will require contributors who claim expertise in a matter to identify themselves.
Although I may appear to be harsh on Wikipedia, I am cognizant of the extreme tension between two seemingly polar schools of thought—anonymity and pedigree. Anonymity is to a great extent what fuels Wiki’s charm—as a result, the site is truly astounding in breadth and depth. However, pedigree, meaning the ability to measure the contributor along professional/academic lines, though so 20th century, is still a valid and necessary concept. While I agree that you should not judge a book by its resume, it is still necessary to at least identify the resume. Hence, Wiki’s identity rule is a positive first step in bridging the gap between the two schools.
In a separate vein, WikiLeaks.org aims to crack the mirror by showing what lies behind it, albeit through anonymous whistleblowers. Designed to be absolutely anonymous in nature, it promotes the dissemination of clandestine political documents (think the Pentagon papers). As the site states:
“Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.”
Hmmm, is this LonelyGirl for regime change? Indeed some argue this is a CIA front, designed to manipulate its readers into adopting its political slant. For those of us that are less conspiracy minded it is a potent example of how anonymity can be a double-edged sword—protection for the oppressed, or in Ryan’s case a false pulpit.
posted by Kaiser at 7:50 AM
0 comments
Subscribe
