One online phenomenon that has come to amaze me is the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Now that I come to think of it, I don’t even know when it was that I switched to using Wikipedia as a primary source to find information about anything and everything. Wikipedia’s rank of one of the top ten most-visited websites worldwide definitely suggests that it has come to be a standard source of significant, legit information. The fact that when you google any topic and have its Wikipedia entry show up definitely ceases to amaze me. In terms of the norm of Wikipedia, it is widely accepted that most of the information posted in articles is true. However, knowing that the encyclopedia is collaboratively constructed by volunteers worldwide and many of its articles can be edited by anyone with Internet access, users also know to believe all information at their own risk.
According to Wallace, “The Leviathan might simply be a system of government that we empower to resolve disputes, justly we hope. It emerges in our eagerness to establish some groups as “moderated”. The anointed moderator, almost always an unpaid volunteer, can choose which messages to censor and which to pass along to all subscribers, and can edit as he or she sees fit” (Wallace, Chapter 4). In search of the Leviathan on Wikipedia, I found two interesting pieces of information that emphasize the notion of an existent Leviathan.
(1) When articles on Wikipedia contain information that is not cited, they inform the reader of the issue with a note on the top of the article that looks like this:
*** This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This little note gives us some comfort in the fact that there is an authoritative figure out there that can verify the information in a given article and remove any false information. This portrayed moderation that Wallace speaks of saves the credibility of Wikipedia and enforces the norm of trusting that Wikipedia produces legit information.
(2) After the tragic deaths of wrestler Chris Benoit and his family, I remember an article over the summer that challenged the credibility of Wikipedia and enforced the Leviathan.
Following is a link to an article that articulates the story.
After the news of Benoit’s murder-suicide leaked, it was speculated that Chris Benoit’s Wikipedia entry had been altered to include the death of his wife before it was reported to have occurred. The quick speculation of this issue definitely gave me comfort in the fact that additions to Wikipedia entries are taken seriously and any discretion in terms of credibility are handled promptly. In light of Wallace’s theory of the Leviathan, I definitely believe that the Leviathan is essential to mediate group cohesiveness on the internet and enforce a sense of purpose to all members of a group.
4 comments:
I agree that Leviathan of Wikipedia is very significant in terms of group norms. When wikipedia first gained popularity, the norm was to believe all information was true. Then a wave of doubt occured, as it seemed nobody was checking articles to enforce credibility. Teachers and professors started to preach, "Do not use wikipedia, it is not a trustworthy site". However, recently, as you notes, the Leviathan of wikipedia has gained strength and is enforcing the norm of posting credible information. When something goes against the norm of true, accurate, complete information, the Leviathan acts.
I would like to know what tools wikipedia users can utilize to question the validity of a wikipedia article, and to what degree readers can "raise an eyebrow" at those who are posting false or incomplete information.
The Leviathan is clearly a necessary component of wikipedia, as you noted, and hopefully the website can legitimize itself to the point where the website can safely be cited in papers (instead of using the actual article's sources cited that is posted on the wiki page).
Hi Sherrie,
Wikipedia can certainly be efficient when it wants to be - I found it interesting when my a-cappella group, The Chordials, and I received a notice from Wikipedia that our page was going to be taken down if it weren't edited according to a certain template. (Yes, The Chordials are on Wikipedia, as are the Hangovers and Cayuga's Waiters) It had to be of a certain length, have info in particular sections of the article, and cite several sources. Of course, the more pivotal the subject, the faster the Wiki team is going to get to you i.e. the bio page for Chris Benoit before his wife's murder. Could you perhaps provide more info on the Wiki team, i.e. what it is they look for in an article? What kinds of laws and constitutions a la Wallace do they impose? What kinds of social norms do we follow when we use/write articles for Wikipedia?
It doesn't really matter if there are errors in Wikipedia or not because it's an encyclopedia. The whole point is just to point you to other resources. So if Wikipedia says something is true and it's not, all that means is that you won't be able to find an original source. The reason you aren't supposed to cite Wikipedia is because you are never supposed to cite any encyclopedia.
For this reason, the Leviathon of Wikipedia is really more concerned with administrative stuff and behind the scenes issues rather than citing every source. Of course, the goal is for every article to eventually be fully sourced, but that may take a while.
Post a Comment