There was an interesting article that ran in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper yesterday that discussed how Wikipedia plans to better manage who can edit this vast online encyclopedia. The new procedure under consideration involves editors submitting changes to a team of ‘trusted reviewers’ who would then decide whether to update the Wikipedia entry or not. This change attempts to address ongoing complaints about factual errors or abuse on the site.
It’s a bit alarming to see this change being considered. One of things that has made Wikipedia such a huge success is the fact that anyone can post, edit or otherwise iterate the content on the site. This dilemma is no different for businesses deploying internal wikis for their employees or public-facing wikis for their business partners or customers. By putting in place a review or moderation process, how might this change the final content and the direction of the overall wiki site? Could these elite reviewers end up with too much control over the site and the perspectives represented there? How does a formalized review process inhibit participation and true collaboration?
As pointed out in the book ‘Wikinomics’ by Don Tapscott, “Wikipedia’s openness indeed leaves it vulnerable to inaccuracies, edit wars and vandalism. But its openness is also the reason why it’s constantly growing, adding new entries, covering new niches, and always reviewing and updating facts.” In fact the model is proven. According to an MIT study, an obscenity randomly inserted on Wikipedia is removed in an average of 1.7 minutes.
Whether it’s one of your corporate wikis or the biggest encyclopedia on the planet with Wikipedia, the reality is that the community can enforce the right behavior and it should be given a chance to do so. The ultimate incentive is to drive open contribution and participation. The benefits come in the form of greater content richness and ultimate quality. But like many things in the Web 2.0 world, deploying a wiki community and fostering collaboration is not a single, mammoth project but an interative, evolutionary process. And one where every user needs to have a voice and an opportunity to participate in this process. Read more.
Subscribe to our blog
Subscribe to our newsletter
Watch us on YouTube