September 12, 2006

Will Wikipedia Mean the End Of Traditional Encyclopedias? September 12, 2006
Wikipedia, the community-edited online encyclopedia, has blossomed. It has thousands of volunteers that have created more than five million entries in do ens of lan!ua!es on everythin! from the "lfin-#oods #arbler1 to $aris %ilton2. &ut the popular site has also been do!!ed by vandals and 'uestions about its accuracy. In one hi!h-profile flap, retired (ournalist )ohn Sei!enthaler Sr. assailed Wikipedia in an op-ed* after discoverin! his bio!raphy had been altered to include a reference that linked him to the assassinations of )ohn +. ,ennedy and his brother, -obert. . recent study/ in the (ournal 0ature, ho#ever, found fe# differences in accuracy bet#een science entries in Wikipedia and the venerable "ncyclopaedia &ritannica. &ritannica, #hich offers short versions of articles online for free and char!es 120 a year for full access, disputed the study and issued a rebuttal3. CAST YOUR VOTE Does Wikipedia's open-editing approach yield etter res!lts than traditional encyclopedias" #articipate in the $!estion o% the Day&' .t a !atherin! of Wikipedia contributors last month, Wikipedia founder )immy Wales ur!ed them to put more emphasis on 'uality instead of 'uantity. In a bid to battle vandalism, the 4erman version of the site is testin!2 a ne# feature that #ill let administrators fla! versions of articles as 5nonvandali ed,5 and those are the pa!es that #ill be sho#n to most visitors. 6an Wikipedia7s everyone7s-an-editor approach produce a reliable resource tool #ithout scholarly oversi!ht8 .re traditional encyclopedias like &ritannica limited by lack of input8 9he Wall Street )ournal :nline invited ;r. Wales to discuss the topic #ith <ale %oiber!, editor-in-chief of &ritannica. 9heir e=chan!e, carried out over email, is belo#. Jimmy Wales begins: We don't view the open system as inherently superior in all respects; it is different, and it has some major stren ths and of course raises some important challen es! The stren ths include a much reater timeliness, a much more comprehensive covera e, and the wide ran e of inputs means a ood chance at a more "alanced and more neutral covera e! The weaknesses include the possi"ility of vandalism, and the fact that in the current incarnation of Wikipedia everythin is always a work in pro ress! #ART(C(#A)TS Jimmy Wales is Wikipedia's* %o!nder and chair+an o% the Wiki+edia ,o!ndation- a nonpro%it he esta lished in .//0 to operate the online encyclopedia and other pro1ects' 2e is also the %o!nder o% Wikia (nc'- a %or-pro%it co+pany that pro3ides 4iki hosting ser3ices' 5e%ore starting Wikipedia- 6r' Wales 4orked as research director at a Chicago- ased options trading %ir+ and %o!nded 5o+is (nc'- a We portal %oc!sed on pop c!lt!re'

Dale Hoiberg is senior 3ice president and editor in chie% o% Encyclopaedia 5ritannica7 (nc'4hich egan p! lication in 89&*' 2e is responsi le %or the editorial di3ision o% the closely held co+pany- 4hich +aintains a ::-+illion-4ord re%erence 4ork a3aila le online and in print' 6r' 2oi erg 1oined 5ritannica in 879* as an inde; editor' 2e held se3eral editorial roles e%ore eing na+ed editor in chie% in 8779' 2e has a #h'D' in Chinese literat!re' We do not "elieve that any resource tool can "e relia"le without scholarly input; this is why we so warmly welcome and invite the contri"utions of e#perts! $t is a lon standin mistake to think of Wikipedia as "ein anti%elitist! &irtually every top Wikipedian $ know is an elitist of the "est sort' We love people who know what they are talkin a"out! Wikipedia is a freely licensed encyclopedia! This means that we invite anyone to take our work and reuse it freely! (ou can copy it, modify it, redistri"ute it, and even redistri"ute modified versions! )ommercially or noncommercially! We "elieve that encyclopedias should not "e locked up under the control of a sin le or ani*ation, "ut a part of the healthy dialo of a free society! Dale Hoiberg responds: $ a ree with some of Mr! Wales's points! )learly, Wikipedia and +ritannica are very different kinds of works! Even Wired ma a*ine editor )hris ,nderson, a fan of Wikipedia's, says +ritannica and Wikipedia are different animals! +ut there is little evidence to su est that simply havin a lot of people freely editin encyclopedia articles produces more "alanced covera e! On the contrary, it opens the ates to propa anda and seesaw fi hts "etween writers with different a#es to rind! +ritannica draws from a community, just as Wikipedia does! Ours consists of more than -,... scholars and e#perts around the world who serve as our contri"utors and advisers! Our system is desi ned to produce sound, informed jud ments that lead to "alanced presentations of the most controversial su"jects! /on er articles often involve multiple contri"utors and, importantly, all +ritannica contri"utors are directed to include alternative points of view wherever applica"le! We continually revisit controversial articles, and since we pu"lish principally on the $nternet we can revise them when we see fit to do that! While Wikipedia may welcome scholars, all the reports $'ve seen su est that most of the work is done "y individuals who, thou h very dedicated, have little or no scholarly "ack round! On the 0uestion of editorial control, $ hardly think havin an encyclopedia pu"lished "y one or ani*ation undermines healthy dialo , since in a free society there are many voices! , relia"le and well%written reference work helps keep the 0uality of the de"ate hi h! Mr. Wales: ,rtificially e#cludin ood people from the process is not the "est way to ather accurate knowled e! +ritannica has acknowled ed the value of havin multiple contri"utors, althou h of course "ecause they are proprietary rather than freely licensed they would have a very hard time attractin the kind of talent that we have! The main thrust of our evolution has "een to "ecome more open, "ecause we have found time and time a ain that increased openness, increased dialo and de"ate, leads to hi her 0uality! $ think it is a misunderstandin to think of 1openness1 as antithetical to 0uality! 1Openness1 is oin to "e necessary in order to reach the hi hest levels of 0uality!

+ritannica has lon "een a standard "earer, and they have done a fine jo" within their model! +ut it is time to work in a different model, with different techni0ues made possi"le "y new technolo ies "ut the same oals, to reach ever hi her standards! Mr. Hoiberg: $ can only assume Mr! Wales is "ein ironic when he says +ritannica would have a hard time attractin the kind of talent that Wikipedia has! +ritannica has pu"lished more than a hundred 2o"el 3ri*e winners and thousands of other well%known e#perts and scholars! )ontrary to Wikipedia, +ritannica's contri"utor "ase is transparent and not anonymous! The way we work with those contri"utors has chan ed in important ways, however, thanks to new technolo ies that have improved our process and products! $nteraction with our readers and contri"utors has always "een part of our daily routine, "ut the We" has ena"led us to enhance this interaction reatly! Our contri"utors now post revisions directly into our editorial workflow system, and "oth they and our readers can and do send us comments and su estions, challen e our facts, and so on! The difference is that comments and su "efore they're posted! estions are reviewed and checked "y 0ualified editors

,nother thou ht occurs to me, thou h! 4rom where $ sit it seems like Wikipedia is at a "it of a crossroads! $t has rown very lar e and now wants to focus on 0uality! That's ood! +ut despite what Mr! Wales says in this post, the road to "etter 0uality at Wikipedia seems to "e paved with less openness, not more! $'m thinkin of Wikipedia's consideration of a so%called 1sta"le version1 that could not "e revised directly! $'m curious to know how he ima ines that workin ! Mr. Wales: ,nd yet, as of today, +ritannica's article a"out +ritannica claims to "e the lar est En lish lan ua e encyclopedia, while the article a"out Wikipedia acknowled es our si*e, which is of course many times the si*e of +ritannica! The point $ am makin here is not at all ironic! +ritannica's contri"utors, while sometimes distin uished, are relatively few in num"er as compared to the num"er of hi h 0uality people that Wikipedia is a"le to rely upon! 6ORE O) W(<(#ED(A = Page One: 5ritannica De%ends (ts T!r%8/ 0>.?>/& = Real Time: Wikipedia's Woes88 8.>87>/: = Loose Wire: Wikipedia (s Wicked8. .>8&>/? We have traditionally protected articles to deal with temporary attacks of vandalism! $n such a state, no one could edit those articles! We did not like this, so we moved to a system of semi%protection, and the 0uality improvements were impressive! We will now "e e#perimentin , first in the 5erman Wikipedia, with a model of fla in versions as "ein 1nonvandali*ed,1 while still allowin editin ! Each of these steps is desi ned to "e more open, and each is also desi ned to help achieve hi her 0uality!

+ritannica doesn't display its rou h drafts, or the articles "efore "ein checked "y a copy editor; Wikipedia does! We think this sort of open transparency is healthy and results in reater 0uality than doin everythin "ehind closed doors! Mr. Hoiberg: 2o, we don't pu"lish rou h drafts! We want our articles to "e correct "efore they are pu"lished! We stand "ehind our process, "ased on trained editors and fact%checkers, more than -,... e#perts, and sound writin ! Our model works well! Wikipedia is very different, "ut nothin in their model su ests we should chan e what we do! Mr. Wales: 4ittin words for an epitaph6 We have spoken openly a"out some of the challen es and difficulties we face at Wikipedia! 2ot lon a o, you suffered some "ad pu"licity78 due to errors in +ritannica7-! 9ave you considered chan in your model to allow 0uick, transparent responses to such criticisms as a way to achieve a hi her 0uality level? Mr. Hoiberg: $n my last postin 6 $ descri"ed the system we are usin for feed"ack from contri"utors and users! $t has proved to "e very helpful in our work, "ut as $ said, all feed"ack from this system is reviewed "y editors and fact%checked "efore "ein incorporated into the data"ase! $ am not sure $ answered the 0uestion you were askin ! $f you were askin whether or not we have considered adoptin the Wikipedia model :allowin any user to affect articles online directly;, the answer is no! <e ardin errors in +ritannica, we check out all such claims or reports carefully! <eal errors are corrected, "ut many times these thin s turn out to "e not true or involve some misunderstandin ! Two 0uestions for Mr! Wales' 7! Will you please e#plain further how 1semi%protectin 1 articles allows for more 1openness1 than did the ori inal Wikipedia model? =! ,s your administrators assume more responsi"ility, do you not owe it to the pu"lic to e#plain their 0ualifications and the criteria they'll "e usin for free*in , protectin and semi%protectin articles? Mr. Wales: 7! $n the ori inal model, we fully protected articles, which meant that no one could edit them! >emi%protection chan ed that "y allowin anyone to edit those entries who had an account for at least four days! =! Of course! ,ll of the criteria are discussed and posted openly on the site! Every action can "e seen easily "y any interested party, and all actions are open to pu"lic review and de"ate! Mr. Hoiberg: $ must point out that Mr! Wales's inclusion of two links in his 0uestion to me, one to Wikipedia itself, is sneaky! $ have had neither the time nor space to respond to them properly in this format! $ could corral any num"er of links to articles alle in errors in Wikipedia and weave them into my posts, "ut it seems to me that our time and space are "etter spent here on issues of su"stance! Mr. Wales: >neaky? $ "e to differ! On the $nternet it is possi"le and desira"le to enhance the understandin of the reader "y linkin directly to resources to enhance and further understandin !

(ou wrote' 1$ have had neither the time nor space to respond to them properly in this format! $ could corral any num"er of links to articles alle in errors in Wikipedia and weave them into my posts, "ut it seems to me that our time and space are "etter spent here on issues of su"stance!1 2o pro"lem? Wikipedia to the rescue with a fine article7@ on the topic! 4ortunately, there is a vast army of volunteers ea er to help ood people like you and me who don't 0uite have enou h time and space to do everythin from scratch ourselves, and they are writin a comprehensive encyclopedic catalo of all human knowled e! They have 0uite ea erly amassed a fantastic list and discussion of do*ens of links to such articles! We are open and transparent and ea er to help people find criticisms of us! Aisconcertin and unusual, $ know! +ut, well, welcome to the $nternet! ,nd yes, this is an issue of su"stance and a fine demonstration of the stren th of the new model! Mr. Hoiberg: Mr! Wales's e#planations of Wikipedia's procedures were surprisin ly unsatisfyin on such issues as' Who actually decides when an article has "een worked on enou h and should "e protected from editin for a period; 9ow and when that status chan es; and, What 0ualifications the people makin these jud ments have! 9ow the new procedures he has discussed recently in the media constitute reater openness in Wikipedia also remains unclear to me! 5eneral encyclopedias are "i "y nature, since they try to encompass all of human knowled e! ,nyone who works on an encyclopedia for any len th of time understands the ha*ard in this' the whole endeavor can easily spin out of control as you try to take in everythin that has ever "een known, thou ht, or said! $t's an impulse that should "e resisted "ecause it produces work without direction or focus! Most of us don't need all the information in the world! We need information that yields knowled e % a practical and enli htened understandin of ourselves and the world we live in! 4or that purpose some information is more valua"le than other information, and distin uishin "etween the two is crucial! /on "efore the We", /ewis Mumford predicted that the e#plosion of information could 1"rin a"out a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to "e distin uished from massive i norance!1 2ot only would lots of information fail to make us smarter; it would actually make us dum"er "y overwhelmin us! The solution, he thou ht, was not to "e found in technolo y alone "ut in 1a reassertion of human selectivity and moral%self discipline, leadin to continent productivity!1 $n these days of information incontinence, in order to "e part of the solution rather than the pro"lem, $ think it is important to remem"er this! B Aoes Wikipedia's open%editin approach yield "etter results than traditional encyclopedias? 3articipate in the Cuestion of the Aay7D! Write to the Online Eournal's editors at replyallFwsj!com7G
URL for this article: http@>>online'4s1'co+>article>S588:9:&.079:0?::.*?'ht+l

Hyperlinks in this Article: !" http@>>en'4ikipedia'org>4iki>El%in-4oodsAWar ler #" http@>>en'4ikipedia'org>4iki>#arisAhilton $" http@>>444'!satoday'co+>ne4s>opinion>editorials>.//:-88-.7-4ikipedia-editA;'ht+ %" http@>>444'nat!re'co+>nat!re>1o!rnal>3?0*>n9/9/>%!ll>?0*7//a'ht+l &" http@>>corporate' ritannica'co+> ritannicaAnat!reAresponse'pd% '" http:(()isc*ssions+,s-+com(n(mb(message+asp.,ebtag/,s-0oices1na0/messages1msg/$223 4" http@>>ne4s' c'co'!k>.>hi>technology>:.*&?:*'st+ 3" http@>>444'4ikipedia'org 2" http@>>444' ritannica'co+> !5" http@>>online'4s1'co+>article>S588?089807**7*/9878'ht+l !!" http@>>online'4s1'co+>article>S5880?://8/?***.8?&/'ht+l !#" http@>>online'4s1'co+>article>S58/9&:00*/.:*..9.&?'ht+l !$" http@>>ed!cation'g!ardian'co'!k>schools>story>/-:://-8077/0*-//'ht+l !%" http@>>en'4ikipedia'org>4iki>Wikipedia@ErrorsAinAtheAEncyclop BC0BA&diaA5ritannicaAthatAha3eA eenAcorrectedAinAWikipedia !&" http@>>en'4ikipedia'org>4iki>Criticis+Ao%AWikipedia !'" http://dis !ssions."s#. om/n/mb/message.asp$"ebtag%"s#&oi es'na&%messages'msg%())* !4" +ailto@replyallC4s1'co+

Copyright .//& Do4 Dones E Co+pany- (nc' All Rights Reser3ed This copy is %or yo!r personal- non-co++ercial !se only' Distri !tion and !se o% this +aterial are go3erned y o!r S! scri er Agree+ent and y copyright la4' ,or nonpersonal !se or to order +!ltiple copies- please contact Do4 Dones Reprints at 8-*//-*?0///* or 3isit 444'd1reprints'co+'