While at IALLT last week, there were a lot of discussions revolving around wikis and blogs. I had a couple of short conversations with some other conference-goers about wikipedia. I love the idea of wikipedia, anthropologically and just in its own right, but it is of course subject to certain limitations by its own nature. It is a great real-world model of truth-building in action. The downsides of this, however, have been discussed far too many times to merit mentioning them again.
From the weaknesses of wikipedia, citizendium was born. Citizendium is an attempt to put wikipedia on a leash, so to speak, with articles being checked by “authors” who’s credentials are posted and able to be checked themselves. Essentially, it is the hierarchical, ivory-tower wikipedia, to put it not-so-nicely. This is not to sound as though I am against the idea. I’m actually all for it.
In recent years I have come to think of the internet as “too democratic” in a way. By this I don’t mean that I think we should start an internet Gestapo, or start taking down websites that offer viewpoints that are frankly quite absurd, but I think we need to face the fact that most of us, as human beings, need to have some sort of validated authority to at least give those working in the fringes some kind of orbit to hang to. Wikipedia is a lackluster substitute for such an authority orbit. When anyone can edit a page then there need to be people to cross-check that editing, and if it is wrong, or simply vandalism, then someone needs to change it back, then it gets vandalized again, etc and so on.
All of this requires people to be always engaged, and ever on the lookout. With so many wikipedia entries on any number of finite topics, your just asking for neglect and degradation somewhere. With Citizendium’s mild restrictions you get that sense of authority, with all the power of citizen contribution. While some may decry the idea of a gate-keeper at the doors of knowledge, I would say that that is and always will be the way we view “real” knowledge. If it isn’t being moderated or validated in some way then it is simply not trusted.
The ultimate point, here, which I feel I may have long ago dropped, is that Citizendium may be the middle ground that “real” academics (those with the papers to prove it) could get on board with. Most professors I talk to don’t give wikipedia the time of day, and routinely mock it, and cringe at the thought of it being their students’ go-to-guy for instant knowledge. My Chinese professor is one such person. When he voiced his disapproval of wikipedia in class one day I asked him why he complains when he could just edit the pages he finds so inadequate. Understandably, he made the excuse that he doesn’t have the time, however, I think it has more to do with apathy than anything else. That and you can’t put “edited the wikipedia entry for ‘Tang Dynasty Poets’” on your CV, and it won’t get you anywhere with regard to tenure or promotion.
Sadly, the thing that gave wikipedia its wings was its robust user input, and if academics are not willing to help Citizendium, then it will fail, and they will still be stuck with wikipedia.
A wholly other option would be to use the peer-review and publication system that academics are so fond of, and integrate those publications in a wiki-style format, with cross-links and meta data, so that you could navigate the corpus of publications on a certain topic as easily (or close) as you can wikipedia. Full articles, or perhaps abstracts, could constitute the body of the entries, while tags, links to related pages, and a short entry on the status of the articles thesis (is it widely accepted? what interesting concepts does it bring up? Who disagrees or has written articles that uphold or contradicts it?). The open source movement, it would seem, would be critical for this to work. The nature of copyright and publication necessarily stifles the free distribution of information that wikipedia makes so key to its framework.
Whatever happens, academics need to get on the boat, fast. Otherwise academic apathy to the technologies of knowledge in the new millennium will make the academic system a laughing stock. Like an 8-track in a Lexus.
