For many people, Wikipedia is an exemplar of the web 2.0 ethos and living proof that the Internet can provide things better and cheaper than traditional media outlets. Indeed, the site's much touted ability to track cultural trends as they occur means that it is the first place many mainstream journalists go when looking for a story. However, in recent months, certain policy changes have taken place at Wikipedia that, if left unchecked, will destroy the site's ability to stay ahead of the cultural curve. Even as we speak, articles on emerging trends and sub-cultures are being airbrushed out of wikipedia for the crime of not having attracted any attention from the mainstream media. Wikipedia is fossilising.
Back in May 2006, controversial technology writer Nicholas Carr predicted the death of Wikipedia. What prompted this seemingly outlandish claim was the emergence of the "semi-protected" status, which made it impossible for members to amend certain articles unless they were established editors who had been members for a long time. Intended to cut down on acts of politically motivated vandalism against notable articles, Carr argued that this new status fundamentally changed the nature of Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia began as an egalitarian enterprise where anyone could modify (within reason) any entry. The idea being that there would be a Darwinian process through which the wheat would be separated from the chaff and, given enough time and page views, the truth would out... or at least a "truth" that everyone could agree upon. However, as Carr noted in his articles, over time it became clear that some wikipedians were more equal than others and soon a raft of policies, rules and by-laws sprang up to determine what kind of articles were worth keeping. Nevertheless, because most people do not have enough time or the knowledge to get involved in administrative debates, the policies and by-laws came to reflect the wishes of the people who did take an interest in how the site was run, and therein lays the problem.
As with many of the stupid rules that govern our lives, we only become aware of them when we find ourselves in contravention of them. This happened to me a few days ago when I noticed that a comedy award put together by a forum I frequent, not only had a Wikipedia entry but its entry had been nominated for deletion. This was a small entry for a yearly award ceremony that usually generates some online discussion and even gets some attention from the mainstream media. Small potatoes admittedly but in the niche world of British comedy geeks, the Comedy Tumbleweed Awards are a talking point. So I logged on to the discussion page and pointed out that actually, the awards are notable and that other sites with similar levels of notoriety have entries, so the Tumblies should have one too. This lead to the entry for well-known comedy website Chortle also getting a nomination for deletion. Indeed, if you look at the appropriate pages, you will see actors, films, organisations and trends being airbrushed out of Wikipedia because they are not notable. The problem is that what is very notable for one community, is obscure or even occult for another and it is the approach to this problem that has changed.
There was a time when Wikipedia was grateful for the knowledge of members of different sub-cultures and groups. The fact that people everywhere could spot a trend and then write about it in Wikipedia meant that chances were that pretty soon you could find out about anything on Wikipedia; from particle physics to obscure fetishes to political splinter-groups. The fact that Wikipedia trusted its members rather than the mainstream media to judge what is worthy of comment meant that wikipedia was consistently ahead of the cultural curve. Indeed, as a co-founder of Kidding Aside, the world's first Childfree political pressure group, I know for a fact while a lot of our mainstream press coverage comes from journalists reading the work of other journalists, a sizeable chunk also comes from journalists typing the word "childfree" into Wikipedia and finding us that way. I am sure that this is also true of political causes and groups that are springing up right now. In fact, a number of them might well be marked for deletion as you read this.
The reason for this change is that highlighted back in May 2006 by Nicholas Carr; a move away from the principles of open-source content provision and towards a more traditional tiered authority structure. Indeed, while Wikipedia used to obey the stark logic of intellectual capitalism with the best ideas, writings and observations competing for conclusion, it has now moved towards more of a planned economy, an economy structured to favour more rigorous and widely accepted interpretations of things.
This structure may prove useful in weeding untruths and outright falsehoods from the larger and more prominent entries but it has also fostered a culture of deference to mainstream media. Indeed, if Wikipedia is to remain ahead of the cultural curve then it must be flexible enough to cover phenomena that exist below the radar of the mainstream media. Phenomena such as obscure comedy awards, political organisations, actors, schools, films and even the bizarre new fetishes that the Internet seems so good at creating.
Now, I am not so naïve that I think that this essay is anything more than my disagreeing about a policy shift that I could have done something about had I known about it when the original discussions surrounding the notability and verifiability criteria were ongoing. Nor am I so naïve as to think that the growing Wikipedia bureaucracy does not serve a purpose. My point is not simply that this policy is wrong it is that it is damaging to a resource that is used by people from all corners of the Internet.
Whether we are members of political groups, Warcraft guilds, film forums, comedy discussion lists or fetish chatrooms, we all use Wikipedia and we all benefit from it staying ahead of the cultural curve rather than deferring to mainstream media. What motivates me today is to educate and warn all members of the various tribes and groups that make up the online community that one of our shared resources, a resource that was once reliant upon our knowledge of niches, is now pulling away from us at the behest of the tiny group of wikipedians who actually bother to monitor the policy discussion lists.
This week I have seen part of my niche airbrushed from Wikipedia. Tomorrow that niche may be yours. Let us all work to reverse this absurd deference to Old Media, let us take our Wikipedia back!
So I suggest that people go to the discussion pages for the Verifiability and Notability criteria and make the case that while it may be worth deferring to academic and mainstream media in cases where such sources cover the phenomenon, there are many many things that fall below that level but which are nonetheless part of the world we inhabit.
Wikipedia should be the first place people go to to find out about anything. An online encyclopedia should not be held hostage by the limited bandwidth and attention of Old Media.
Comments