Wikipedia's Soul

One has to wonder when the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster will decide to include "Wikipedia" as a word. They list Google as a transitive verb in their dictionary; “to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web.” Wikipedia, surprisingly, returns no results on merriam-webster.com though it’s clearly entered our lexicon.

Wikipedia, as The Economist noted earlier this month, is the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of user-generated content on the Internet. However, the site faces an identity crisis as two competing blocs struggle to drive content. “Inclusionists” believe Wikipedia should include every aspect of human knowledge. They argue that applying stringent editorial criteria will douse enthusiasm. “Deletionists” would have the site adopt such editorial control. They counter that Wikipedia ought to be more cautious, more selective.

www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

The article prompted me to read more about this oft-used site. I Wikipediaed Wikipedia to refresh my memory about the controversy that arose when a user wrote an article about journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. that contained defamatory content. The errors went undetected for four months until Seigenthaler contacted the editors. He later wrote an Op-Ed piece in which he called Wikipedia “a flawed and irresponsible research tool." Certainly, the Deletionists must have referenced the Seigenthaler entry more than once.

I rely on Wikipedia, perhaps too much for a former journalist. Recent searches – which may betray something, I’m not sure what – include Alexis Glick, Brian Greene, Comcast, Dani Rodrik, Heroes TV, La Vie en Rose, Molly Ivins, Super Endaka, Tom Wilkinson, and The Wire Season 4. Still, I have to believe I would fall on the Deletionist side if I were an editor.

Has Wikipedia any future?

A lot can be said about Wikipedia (both good and bad). There are some examples of misuse of the free initiative to create opinion, to change history, to influence politics, ...

On the other hand, it is a good example of what Web 2.0 is supposed to be: user collaboration, user generated content, open standards, fast evolving, ...

I was really surprised reading this comment from Florence Devouard (Chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation):

“At this point, Wikipedia has the financial ressources to run its servers for about 3 to 4 months. If we do not find additional funding, it is not impossible that Wikipedia might disappear”.

Those are her words at LIFT 07 and they bring old issues to the stage:

• What is the business model behind Wikipedia?
• What is the future of all those initiatives based on the user willingness to work for nothing (i.e. Linux software, Wikipedia,...)?
• What the industry should support a free initiative with funds when there are legitimate companies providing solutions + support + rigor?

I'm sure that Wikipedia has help Britannica to understand that the rules of the game have changed, but I still feel more safe quoting an article from Britannica than one from Wikipedia.

Should Wikipedia die? Is all this some kind of PR campaign to collect funds?