January 31, 2007, 4:58 PM — What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology
There are creations in the world of technology that incite followers to go beyond appreciating the creation for what it is, and turn it into something god-like. Take Apple computers for example. Mind you, I'm not trying to criticize Apple here -- but many Apple enthusiasts I have talked to get way too excited about comparing Apples to PCs, and declare the machines to be far more perfect than they are. That's largely because Apple has created, through its very competent marketing department, a perception of coolness.
And so too, this thing called Wikipedia has been turned into something greater than it should be. Wikipedia is of course, a useful collection of information, and a good starting point for research. However, no serious scholar would accept it as a final destination for research. Wikipedia entries can't by any stretch of the imagination be seen as definitive. However, Wikipedians tend to believe that the collective nature of this creation, which visionary Jaron Lanier delightfully called "digital Maoism," makes it somehow superior to other bodies of research that are written by credentialed professionals, supervised by editors, and vetted by fact-checkers. It is not.
An Associated Press article this week highlighted the aversion Wikipedians have to anybody making money. In fact, the old saw "The Internet wants to be free" is meaningless and perhaps even harmful, given that the Internet has achieved what it has today largely through commercial effort. We benefit when hardware companies come up with better switches and when telecom companies create faster infrastructures -- but those companies do what they do to make money, and for no other reason. That said, the hubbub this week surrounds Microsoft who wanted to pay a writer to repair inaccuracies in technical articles that appeared on Wikipedia.
If Microsoft, or any company for that matter, sees an inaccuracy in an article, should they not be entitled to repair it? That is, after all, part of the collective nature of the Wikipedia, which operates under the theory that inaccuracies will eventually get fixed by people who know. Or is it, to the contrary, that knowledge is less important than a perceived coolness and subservience to the concept of the collective "Internet wants to be free" consciousness? If I own a technology company, and a Wikipedia article contains a technological inaccuracy about my product, should I not be allowed to make a contribution, just like anybody else? And what difference should it make if that correction is generated by a paid staff member of said computer company (or in this case, a contractor)? As someone who makes a living putting words on paper, I take exception to this proposal. Market researcher Gregory Kohs' MyWikiBiz service, which offered to write (or presumably, edit or correct) Wikipedia entries for between $49 and $99, seemed logical, but Wikipedia shut him down unceremoniously for daring to go against the collectivistic ethos of the Wikipedia. However, I submit that Kohs' service would have added a bit of professionalism to the site.
I tend to agree with Eric Goldman, who in a blog last year made a bet that Wikipedia will fail by 2010, citing numerous problems, not the least of which is "wiki wars" in which individuals with too much time on their hands and too many axes to grind continuously edit each others' entries. Wikipedia could eliminate some of this by locking down pages that have achieved a good level of accuracy and consensus, and installing some sort of reputation system. I would add that another reason for its ultimate demise is its rigid stance against making any money. Of course, Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, funded primarily by donations. There is no advertising on the site. Now as most accountants will tell you, "non-profit" means very little, and is just another way of organizing a company, but I will give Wikipedia credit for sticking to the concept. The 2006 financial report showed total salaries and wages of just $107,122. Clearly, nobody is getting rich from Wikipedia. But how long can it sustain itself from donations? Three things are going to happen: First, Wikipedia is going to grow in size, and will therefore require more resources to sustain itself. Second, professionals, scholars, and those who are most qualified to contribute will contribute less, because of the limited reward for doing so. Working for free is overrated. And third, as Wikipedia becomes less of a novelty, donations will drop off. Much like the Soviet Union, Wikipedia will collapse under its own weight as its collective model becomes unsustainable.
