Objectivity of Wikipedia

The Wikipedia is based upon a set of standards known as the “Five Pillars” that create its virtual embodiment as a viable reference material. These consist of the facts that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, has a neutral point of view, is free content, has a code of conduct, and does not have firm rules. These criteria, if followed, are meant to maintain the objectivity of the site a majority of Internet users have come to trust, but if out of nothing but pure curiosity, it is interesting to take a look at the Wikipedia page for neutrality. How objective can a purely-facts website be about itself? Running through the Five Pillars should qualify as an accurate checklist.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia by definition is “a reference work… containing articles on various topics… dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty.” The Wikipedia defines itself as a “Web-based free-content multilingual encyclopedia project.” The fact is that Wikipedia is a vast collection of web articles that nearly covers all aspects of human history with small gaps in minute articles such as the population of a small village in Russia, an event center in Arizona, etc. It qualifies as an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. After reading through the article, one should pay particular attention to the areas in which the criticisms are mentioned. Bringing up the hot topic of John Seigenthaler’s defamation, it seems that the online encyclopedia could have included more regarding the subject. The exclusion of the link to Seigenthaler’s article on the page seems a bit suspicious. One can find out more if they look up a news article regarding the incident including the text that refered to Seigenthaler’s involvement with the Kennedy assassinations. A lack of objectivity can be found here not in what was on the the page but rather in what was excluded.

Wikipedia is free content. It interesting to note that the Wikipedia is made available under the GNU Free Documentation License, a counterpart to the same license that Richard Stallman helped to design with his Free Software Foundation. However, in the Wikipedia article under its Editing section, it is written that the Wikipedia is developed “much the same way that open-source software [is] develop[ed].” With current discussions over the difference between Free Software and Open-Source, it seems odd to include the terms in the same definition. So, what is it? If it the Wikipedia has abandoned its Free Software roots, could it be influenced by the premise of the corporate mainstream as other programs have? Time will tell.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct. The Wikipedia code of conduct is meant to inspire a generally peaceful flow mutual information between all who wish to access it. However, with the combination of many controversial topics and the anonymity of the web, this code can be easily ignored. Incidents include the constant attack of the biography of Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. In this attack, a determined hacker (or group) will occasionally delete the entire article and replace it with the single word, “Tax.” Even though these situations may be humorous, they act as proof against the consistant reliablity of the Wikipedia and discredit even further.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules. The final pillar acts as a means to inspire creativity without consequence. However, when this page is selected, a discouraging message is displayed. “Significant revisions are proposed to this policy or guideline.” How can one go about defining a rule to ignore rules? The paradoxical answer can’t be defined in a manner that will satisfy every person that asks the question because the answer is relative to the situation in which it is being asked of. Therefore, with this principle in place, the Wikipedia can never be set into a balance on all subjects because any given person that can edit the wiki (i.e. everyone) carries his or her own opinion on some given subject, making Wikipedia not 100% objective.

The overall analysis of Wikipedia can be disconcerting, bringing in questions from a lack of expertise, varied editor motivations, and even a foundation based upon a disregard for its own rules. The objectivity of this online collection can be, if nothing else, a little shady. However, when compared to other reference material, Wikipedia reigns supreme in terms of ease, availability, and overall happiness for its users. So, if presented with a choice on which tool to use when writing a report, the writer must ask if objectivity is truly the most important quality to consider when choosing a resource.