neticulum

Wikipedia is a subject of great controversy amongst observers/participants of Web 2.0. We must give credit to the fact that Wikipedia represents the first attempt to survey and capture the knowledge of the entire human race, as opposed to its scientific and academic elite. Its proponents see it as the democratic version of accepted knowledge; they believe it illuminates an essential departure from classically Liberal views of knowledge and power. Social network researcher Mark Pesce explains, “In Liberalism, knowledge is a scarce resource, managed by elites: the more scarce knowledge is, the more highly valued that knowledge, and the elites which conserve it. Wikipedia turns that assertion inside out: the more something is shared the more valuable it becomes. These newly disproportionate returns on the investment in altruism now trump the ‘virtue of selfishness.’” (his entire blog post can be viewed here: http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/)

Yet criticism of Wikipedia is fierce. There is much evidence that Wikipedia is far from democratic. Its “anybody can edit” appeal is an illusion; in reality, authority over Wikipedia entries is hierarchical and is concentrated in the hands of hyperconnected “Wikipedians” who tightly regulate the additions and revisions to the so-called “citizen’s” enyclopedia. One stark example is the the successful attempt of political organizations to influence wikipedia editors to promote pro-Israeli and anti-Arab stances on certain Wikipedia entries (don’t remember where I heard this, need the site to back it up).

Wikipedia has made a great fuss about how the United States Federal Government has edited several of its entries on topics like Guantanamo Bay and the War in Iraq to downplay criticisms of these violent ventures and promote pro-government, pro-military propaganda. Wikipedia was able to trace the IP addresses of several of these edits to various Pentagon offices as well as Guantanamo’s very own computer lab. Yet Wikipedia engages in these same biased editing practices on its own websites to protect its own assets and reputation. You can read about it here: (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_censoring_Wikinews)

Basically, Wikimedia (the parent company of Wikipedia as well as Wikinews and other various and sundry Wikiventures) censored a couple of posts made on Wikinews regarding a lawsuit levied against Wikimedia as well as controversial statements made by the Deputy Director of Wikipedia. Both edits were made in an attempt to protect Wikimedia’s reputation. Apparently even the supposed harbringer of democratic information can’t resist engaging in a little propaganda.  What is especially important to note here is that WIkimedia is supposed to be editorially independent from Wikinews. This is not just a matter of journalistic integrity and good reputation – although those are important too – but might be a cause for legal action. In one of the few laws the government has actually passed regulating the oft-murky jurisdiction of Web 2.0. Rhe US Communcations Decency Action (CDA) section 230 gives providers of Internet services immunity from legal action regarding user-generated content, provided they do not exercise “pre-publication control.” In other words, sites that host web 2.0 technology are supposed to let the community run free. If they edit content before it’s published, or cherry-pick what does and doesn’t get published, then there’s gonna be some legal trouble. Good to know that the government is tacitly upholding the rights and integrity of grassroots journalists! I wonder if anybody has ever gotten in trouble for this… or if Wikimedia will end up paying the consequences.

This reminds me a lot of Sam Han’s critique of the “blackboxing” of Web 2.0 technology; he argues that the uber accessible user-friendly format of web 2.0 hides the real technology that goes behind web production, concentrating too much power into the hands of the webmasters while satiating users with the illusion of control. Wikimedia’s apparent corruption speaks to our gullibility as well as their power, and is a phenomenon we should be wary of.

P.S. Props to Wikileaks for uncovering and posting this knowledge!