Anyone may contribute to E-encyclopedia

Andrew Lih, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, Hong Kong

In the last ten years, the Internet has opened up incredible amounts of information to ordinary citizens. But using the Internet can be like walking into a library where the books are all lying on the floor in piles. While tools like Google allow some structured search, much of the data from such searches is outdated or of questionable value. Some web enthusiasts have taken up the task of organizing information through a democratic means that only the Internet allows: An encyclopedia of the people, by the people, and completely free to copy and distribute.

This "people's encyclopedia" of the Web -- a free site called Wikipedia -- has provided a unique solution by inviting individuals to participate in the process of rationalizing and updating web content. At the heart of this movement are wikis, web sites that allow users to directly edit any web page with one click of the mouse. (The Hawaiian word for "quick", WikiWiki, is the basis for the wiki name.)

Wikipedia -- the largest example of these collaborative efforts -- is a functioning, user-contributed online encyclopedia that has become a popular and highly regarded reference in just three years of existence. The goal of Wikipedia was to create an encyclopedia that could be shared and copied freely while encouraging people to change and improve the content. Each and every article has an "Edit this page" button, allowing anyone, even anonymous passersby, to add or delete any content on the page. It seems like a recipe for disaster and chaos, but it has produced surprisingly credible content that has been evaluated and revised by the thousands of international visitors to the site. For many, it finally realizes the original concept of World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- an online environment where people not only browse content, but freely and actively exchange information.

The Wikipedia project was started by Jimmy Wales, head of Internet startup Bomis.com, after his original project for a volunteer, but strictly controlled, free encyclopedia ran out of money and resources after two years. Editors with PhD degrees were at the helm of the project then, but it produced only a few hundred articles. Not wanting the content to languish, Wales placed the pages on a wiki website in January 2001 and invited any Internet visitors to edit or add to the collection.

The site became a runaway success in the first year and gained a loyal following, generating over 20,000 articles and spawning over a dozen language translations. After two years, it had 100,000 articles, and in April 2004, it exceeded 250,000 articles in English and 600,000 articles in 50 other languages. Over 2,000 new articles are added each day across all the various languages. And according to website rankings at Alexa.com, it has become more popular than traditional online encyclopedias such as Britannica.com and is one of the top 600 most heavily visited websites on the internet.

What could possibly allow this completely open editing system to work? Because wikis provide the ability to track the status of articles, review individual changes, and discuss issues, they function as social software. Wiki web sites also track and store every modification made to an article, so no operation is ever permanently destructive. Wikipedia works largely by consensus, with users adding and modifying content, while trying to reach common ground along the way.

However, the technology is not enough on its own. Wales created an editorial policy of maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) as the guiding principle. "NPOV is an absolute non- negotiable requirement of everything that we do," he says. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." With this policy, the grassroots project established "journalistic" principles -- sticking to the facts, attributing sources and maintaining balance.

As a result, articles on contentious issues such as globalization have benefited from the cooperative and global nature of Wikipedia. Over the last two years, the entry has had more than 90 edits by contributors from the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, United States, Malaysia, Japan and China. It provides a manifold view of issues from the World Trade Organization and multinational corporations to the anti-globalization movement and threats to cultural diversity.

At the same time, malicious contributors are kept in check because vandalism is easily undone. Users dedicated to fixing vandalism watch the list of recent changes, fixing problems within minutes, if not seconds. A defaced article can quickly be returned to an acceptable version with just one click of a button. This crucial asymmetry tips the balance in favor of productive and cooperative members of the wiki community, allowing quality content to prevail.

A growing number of people are recognizing Wikipedia's credibility. News publications such as the Houston Chronicle and the Sydney Morning Herald have cited Wikipedia in articles ranging from carpal tunnel syndrome to weapons of mass destruction. The website has even been cited during litigation. In July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court.

The project's neutral point of view policy has provided an important touchstone for quality information on the Internet. In an April 2004 dispute over Google's search results for the term "Jew", online activists were able to displace the controversial top ranking JewWatch.com site with Wikipedia content. By encouraging Internet content creators to link to Wikipedia's "Jew" article, grassroots organizers boosted its popularity so that it would be returned first. On the discussion area of the website, Joho the Blog, user Joe Buck recommended Wikipedia as a "nice, neutral candidate to quickly push the hater site out of first place."

Wikis are just starting to receive recognition for generating credible collaborative content. Perhaps the toughest part of Wikipedia's future is how to manage its own success. While Wikipedia has recorded impressive accomplishments in three years, its articles have a mixed degree of quality because they are, by design, always in flux, and always editable. That reason alone makes people wary of its content. But first time visitors are typically impressed with what the community has developed, considering the decentralized and international nature of the effort.

Wales envisions someday a "1.0" version of Wikipedia -- a tangible product in printed form or CD-ROM, serving as a reference work for those not connected to the Internet. But this vision is still far from reality, as there is still contentious debate on how to do something that is unnatural for a wiki -- freeze its content. Until then, thousands of contributors will keep typing away, like a massive cyber ant colony, working on the largest encyclopedia in the world.

By trusting users first, and establishing filters only when necessary, wikis show how good faith and simple technology have utilized the power of diverse individuals to create collaborative works. As a result, Wikipedia allows any user to act as producer and consumer in a free marketplace of knowledge. As the world becomes increasingly integrated, Wikipedia helps illustrate how the Internet will play a crucial role in keeping apace of new knowledge and understanding of the global community.

The writers is an assistant professor at the Journalism and Media Studies Center at the University of Hong Kong.